RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Diagnostic comparison of three fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay platforms for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.10.07.20207696
DO 10.1101/2020.10.07.20207696
A1 Parai, Debaprasad
A1 Dash, Girish Chandra
A1 Choudhary, Hari Ram
A1 Peter, Annalisha
A1 Rout, Usha Kiran
A1 Nanda, Rashmi Ranjan
A1 Kshatri, Jaya Singh
A1 Kanungo, Srikanta
A1 Palo, Subrata Kumar
A1 Turuk, Jyotirmayee
A1 Pati, Sanghamitra
A1 Bhattacharya, Debdutta
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/09/2020.10.07.20207696.abstract
AB The whole world is battling against coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Various strategies are taken to curb the spread of the virus and to move out from the enforced lockdown stage. Serological tests are the neediest diagnostic and surveillance tool to complement the gold standard molecular diagnostic method to track down the transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2. Automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) based analyzers become highly demanding platforms both to clinicians and policy makers for the detection anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In this study, serum from 594 patients positive for COVID-19 and 100 samples from pre-COVID cases were tested by three automated platforms: Abbott architect i2000SR, Roche cobas e411 and Yhlo iFlash 1800 and their diagnostic accuracy were compared. All three platforms showed high specificity as claimed by manufacturer. Clinical sensitivities of the machines were calculated as 64.48% (58.67-70.3) for Abbott, 80.48% (76.62-84.34) for Roche and 76.94% (72.65-81.23) for Yhlo. The Cohen’s kappa value was determined from 0.69-0.89 when inter-rater agreements were calculated. The area under the curves (AUC) values demonstrated Roche Cobas e411 as the diagnostically most accurate platform among the three CLIA analyzers.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementIntramural funds from Indian Council of Medical Research, New DelhiAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was cleared by institutional ethical committee.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe data is available with the corresponding author and can be provided on valid request.