RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in a longitudinal cohort of mild COVID-19 patients: sensitivity, specificity and association with virus neutralization test
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.30.20194290
DO 10.1101/2020.09.30.20194290
A1 Bal, Antonin
A1 Pozzetto, Bruno
A1 Trabaud, Mary-Anne
A1 Escuret, Vanessa
A1 Rabilloud, Muriel
A1 Langlois-Jacques, Carole
A1 Paul, Adèle
A1 Guibert, Nicolas
A1 D’Aubarede-Frieh, Constance
A1 Massardier-Pilonchery, Amélie
A1 Fabien, Nicole
A1 Goncalves, David
A1 Boibieux, André
A1 Morfin-Sherpa, Florence
A1 Pitiot, Virginie
A1 Gueyffier, François
A1 Lina, Bruno
A1 Fassier, Jean-Baptiste
A1 Trouillet-Assant, Sophie
A1 COVID SER STUDY GROUP
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/08/2020.09.30.20194290.abstract
AB Background The association between SARS-CoV-2 commercial serological assays and virus neutralization test (VNT) has been poorly explored in mild COVID-19 patients.Methods A total of 439 serum specimens were longitudinally collected from 76 healthcare workers with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19. The sensitivity (determined weekly) of nine commercial serological assays were evaluated. Specificity was assessed using 69 pre-pandemic sera. Correlation, agreement and concordance with the VNT were also assessed on a subset of 170 samples. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was estimated at several neutralizing antibody titers.Results The Wantai Total Ab assay targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) within the S protein presented the best sensitivity at different times during the course of disease. The specificity was greater than 95% for all tests except for the Euroimmun IgA assay. The overall agreement with the presence of neutralizing antibodies ranged from 62.2% (95%CI; 56.0-68.1) for bioMérieux IgM to 91.2% (87.0-94.2) for Siemens. The lowest negative percent agreement (NPA) was found with the Wantai Total Ab assay (NPA 33% (21.1-48.3)). The NPA for other total Ab or IgG assays targeting the S or the RBD was 80.7% (66.7-89.7), 90.3 (78.1-96.1) and 96.8% (86.8-99.3) for Siemens, bioMérieux IgG and DiaSorin, respectively. None of commercial assays have sufficient performance to detect a neutralizing titer of 80 (AUC<0.76).Conclusions Although some assays presented a better agreement with VNT than others, the present findings emphasize that commercialized serological tests including those targeting the RBD cannot substitute a VNT for the assessment of functional antibody response.Competing Interest StatementAntonin Bal has received grant from bioMerieux and has served as consultant for bioMerieux for work and research not related to this manuscript. Sophie Trouillet-Assant has received research grant from bioMerieux concerning previous works not related to this manuscript. The other authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.Clinical TrialNCT04341142Funding StatementThis research is being supported by Hospices Civils de Lyon and by Fondation des Hospices Civils de Lyon.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:Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, approval was obtained from the national review board for biomedical research in April 2020 (Comite de Protection des Personnes Sud Mediterranee I, Marseille, France; ID RCB 2020-A00932-37)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.YesAll data are available in the manuscript