RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Clinical performance of a chemiluminescence SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay in a cohort of healthcare workers, blood donors and COVID-19 patients
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.03.09.23287052
DO 10.1101/2023.03.09.23287052
A1 Rangel, Giselle
A1 Lopez, Daysa
A1 Chavarría, Athneris
A1 Mudarra, Laiss
A1 Britton, Gabrielle
A1 Villarreal, Alcibiades
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287052.abstract
AB Introduction Serological detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 has become an essential tool to test vaccine efficacy and epidemiological surveillance of COVID-19. There have been limited published studies documenting the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays within hispanic populations.Materials and methods We evaluated the diagnostic performance of a chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (CLIA) on a set of 1,035 samples including pre-pandemic samples, healthcare workers (HCW), blood donors (BD) and COVID-19 positive confirmed by RT-PCR collected from April to December 2020.Results Through a ROC curve the CLIA test had a high diagnostic performance, with an AUC of 0.9854 (CI95% 95.68-100), P <0.0001. The analysis yielded a cut-off point 0.1950, sensitivity of 98.4% (CI95% 95 91.54-99.9), and specificity of 93.8% (CI95% 79.8 - 98.9). The diagnostic performance was also evaluated comparing the results with those obtained using other diagnostic techniques. Substantial agreement with the lateral flow chromatography and RT-PCR tests was found, and a high level of agreement with ELISA, with %PPA of 91.3 (CI95% 84.0-95.5), % NPA of 97.7 (CI95% 96.3-98.6), % OPA of 97.7 (CI95% 96.3-98.6) and Cohen’s kappa value of 90.4 (CI95% 85.8-94.9). A logistic regression was used to determine which of the independent variables predicted reactivity to CLIA test. A higher age was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.043 (CI95% 1.022-1.065), while the presence of at least one chronic disease was associated with an OR of 5.649 (CI95% 3.089-10.329) greater likelihood of reactivity.Conclusions CLIA test exhibited excellent performance making it a suitable test for seroprevalence surveillance at the community level.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was supported by Panama Secretaria Nacional de Ciencia Tecnologia e Innovacion (SENACYT) Rapid Grant No. 60-2020-COVID19-233 and Sistema Nacional de Investigacion (SNI). Additional support for personnel and field personnel was obtained from INDICASAT-AIP. Laboratory equipment and specialized personnel to carry out CLIA test was a contribution of CEVAXIN. CLIA test was donated by Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Panama. Funding sources had no involvement in the study design or writing the manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.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:The clinical study was registered with the Panama Ministry of Health (No. 1,462) and the protocol was approved by the National Research Bioethics Committee (CNBI; No. EC-CNBI-2020-03-43). All participants provided informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality of the study participants were maintained.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript