Abstract
Background Reliable antibody tests are an essential tool to identify individuals who have developed an adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2. However, attempts to maximize the specificity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests have come at the cost of sensitivity, exacerbating the total test error with increasing seroprevalence. Here, we present a novel method to maximize specificity while maintaining or even increasing sensitivity: the “Sensitivity Improved Two-Test” or “SIT²” algorithm.
Methods SIT² involves confirmatory re-testing of samples with results falling in a predefined retesting-zone of an initial screening test, with adjusted cut-offs to increase sensitivity. We verified and compared the performance of SIT² to single tests and orthogonal testing (OTA) in an Austrian cohort (1,117 negative, 64 post-COVID positive samples) and validated the algorithm in an independent British cohort (976 negatives, 536 positives).
Results The specificity of SIT² was superior to single tests and non-inferior to OTA. The sensitivity was maintained or even improved using SIT² when compared to single tests or OTA. SIT² allowed correct identification of infected individuals even when a live virus neutralization assay could not detect antibodies. Compared to single testing or OTA, SIT² significantly reduced total test errors to 0·46% (0·24-0·65) or 1·60% (0·94-2·38) at both 5% or 20% seroprevalence.
Conclusion SIT² proved to be the best diagnostic choice at both 5% and 20% seroprevalence in all tested scenarios. It is an easy algorithm to apply to different available SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing systems and can potentially be helpful for the serology of other infectious diseases.
Competing Interest Statement
NP received a travel grant from DiaSorin. DWE reports lecture fees from Gilead outside the submitted work. OCB reports grants from GSK, grants from Menarini, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Astra, grants from MSD, grants from Pfizer, and grants from Chiesi, outside the submitted work. SH does receive unrestricted research grants (GSK, Boehringer, Menarini, Chiesi, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Novartis, Air Liquide, Vivisol, Pfizer, TEVA) for the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of COPD and Respiratory Epidemiology, and is on advisory boards for G. SK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Menarini, Chiesi, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Roche, Abbvie, Takeda, and TEVA for respiratory oncology and COPD. PQ is an advisory board member for Roche Austria and reports personal fees from Takeda outside the submitted work. The Dept. of Laboratory Medicine (Head: OWF) received compensations for advertisement on scientific symposia from Roche, DiaSorin, and Abbott and holds a grant for evaluating an in-vitro diagnostic device from Roche. CJB is a Board Member of Technoclone. HH receives compensations for biobank services from Glock Health Science and Research and BlueSky immunotherapies.
Funding Statement
The MedUni Wien Biobank is funded for its participation in the biobank consortium BBMRI.at (www.bbmri.at) by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. There was no external funding received for the work presented. However, test kits for the Technoclone ELISAs were kindly provided by the manufacturer free of charge.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of the Medical University of Vienna (1424/2020)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Minor amendment to title
Data Availability
Data is available for interested researchers upon request from the corresponding author.
