RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparative performance of five commercially available serologic assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and identify individuals with high neutralizing titers
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.08.31.20184788
DO 10.1101/2020.08.31.20184788
A1 Patel, Eshan U.
A1 Bloch, Evan M.
A1 Clarke, William
A1 Hsieh, Yu-Hsiang
A1 Boon, Denali
A1 Eby, Yolanda
A1 Fernandez, Reinaldo E.
A1 Baker, Owen R.
A1 Keruly, Morgan
A1 Kirby, Charles S.
A1 Klock, Ethan
A1 Littlefield, Kirsten
A1 Miller, Jernelle
A1 Schmidt, Haley A.
A1 Sullivan, Philip
A1 Piwowar-Manning, Estelle
A1 Shrestha, Ruchee
A1 Redd, Andrew D.
A1 Rothman, Richard E.
A1 Sullivan, David
A1 Shoham, Shmuel
A1 Casadevall, Arturo
A1 Quinn, Thomas C.
A1 Pekosz, Andrew
A1 Tobian, Aaron A.R.
A1 Laeyendecker, Oliver
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/02/2020.08.31.20184788.abstract
AB Accurate serological assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are needed to characterize the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify potential candidates for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donation. This study compared the performance of commercial enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and neutralizing antibodies (nAb). The diagnostic accuracy of five commercially available EIAs (Abbott, Euroimmun, EDI, ImmunoDiagnostics, and Roche) to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated from cross-sectional samples of potential CCP donors that had prior molecular confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection for sensitivity (n=214) and pre-pandemic emergency department patients for specificity (n=1,102). Of the 214 potential CCP donors, all were sampled >14 days since symptom onset and only a minority had been hospitalized due to COVID-19 (n=16 [7.5%]); 140 potential CCP donors were tested by all five EIAs and a microneutralization assay. When performed according to the manufacturers’ protocol to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the sensitivity of each EIA ranged from 76.4% to 93.9%, and the specificity of each EIA ranged from 87.0% to 99.6%. Using a nAb titer cutoff of ≥160 as the reference positive test (n=140 CCP donors), the empirical area under receiver operating curve of each EIA ranged from 0.66 (Roche) to 0.90 (Euroimmun). Commercial EIAs with high diagnostic accuracy to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies did not necessarily have high diagnostic accuracy to detect high nAbs. Some but not all commercial EIAs may be useful in the identification of individuals with high nAbs in convalescent individuals.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported in part by the Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health, as well as extramural support from NIAID (R01AI120938, R01AI120938S1 and R01AI128779 to A.A.R.T; R01AI05273 and R01AI152078 to A.C.; T32AI102623 for supporting E.U.P.; UM1-AI068613 for supporting R.E.F. and E.K.; and NIH Center of Excellence in Influenza Research and Surveillance HHSN272201400007C to A.P. and R.E.R.), National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (K23HL151826 to E.M.B and R01HL059842 to A.C.), National Institute of Drug Abuse (T32DA007292 for supporting D.B.), Bloomberg Philanthropies (A.C.) and Department of Defense (W911QY2090012 to A.C. and D.S.).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:This study used stored samples and data from two parent studies that were approved by The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board.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.YesData is available upon request