RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Accurate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys require robust multi-antigen assays
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.09.20191122
DO 10.1101/2020.09.09.20191122
A1 Fotis, Christos
A1 Meimetis, Nikolaos
A1 Tsolakos, Nikos
A1 Politou, Marianna
A1 Akinosoglou, Karolina
A1 Pliaka, Vicky
A1 Minia, Angeliki
A1 Terpos, Evangelos
A1 Trougakos, Ioannis P.
A1 Mentis, Andreas
A1 Marangos, Markos
A1 Panayiotakopoulos, George
A1 Dimopoulos, Meletios A.
A1 Gogos, Charalampos
A1 Spyridonidis, Alexandros
A1 Alexopoulos, Leonidas G.
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/09/2020.09.09.20191122.abstract
AB There is a plethora of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests based either on nucleocapsid phosphoprotein (N), S1-subunit of spike glycoprotein (S1) or receptor binding domain (RBD). Although these single-antigen based tests demonstrate high clinical performance, there is growing evidence regarding their limitations in epidemiological serosurveys. To address this, we developed a Luminex-based multiplex immunoassay that detects total antibodies (IgG/IgM/IgA) against the N, S1 and RBD antigens and used it to compare antibody responses in 1,225 blood donors across Greece. Seroprevalence based on single-antigen readouts was strongly influenced by both the antigen type and cut-off value and ranged widely [0.8% (95% CI, 0.4-1.5%)-7.5% (95% CI, 6.0-8.9%)]. A multi-antigen approach requiring partial agreement between RBD and N or S1 readouts (RBD&N|S1 rule) was less affected by cut-off selection, resulting in robust seroprevalence estimation [0.6% (95% CI, 0.3-1.1%)-1.2% (95% CI, 0.7-2.0%)] and accurate identification of seroconverted individuals.Competing Interest StatementLGA, NT, AM VP, are members of ProtATonce Ltd. All other authors declare no competing interests related to this article.Funding StatementFUNDING: Does not apply.Author 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:Sampling from SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals was done with informed consent and under approved institutional and ethic review board approved clinical protocols conducted in full compliance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki (University Hospital of Patras EC 164/27.04.2020 and IRB 216/08.05.2020, Alexandra General Hospital NCT04408209 trial). Stored negative samples were acquired in accordance with local ethical approvals. The population-level study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Patras (Ref. Number 6099) and all participants gave written informed consent.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 datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.