Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Serology tests: Are they good enough?

Isabelle Piec; Emma English; M Annette Thomas; Samir Dervisevic; William D Fraser; W Garry John

doi:10.1101/2020.11.13.20229625

Abstract

Background In the emergency of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, great efforts were made to quickly provide serology testing to the medical community however, these methods have been introduced into clinical practice without the complete validation usually required by the regulatory organizations.

Methods SARS-CoV-2 patient samples (n=43) were analysed alongside pre-pandemic control specimen (n=50), confirmed respiratory infections (n=50), inflammatory polyarthritis (n=22) and positive for thyroid stimulating immunoglobulin (n=30). Imprecision, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity and concordance were evaluated on IgG serologic assays from EuroImmun, Epitope Diagnostics (EDI), Abbott Diagnostics and DiaSorin and a rapid IgG/IgM test from Healgen.

Results EDI and EuroImmun imprecision was 0.02-14.0% CV. Abbott and DiaSorin imprecision (CV) ranged from 5.2% - 8.1% and 8.2% - 9.6% respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity of the assays were 100% (CI: 80-100%) for Abbott, EDI and EuroImmun and 95% (CI: 73-100%) for DiaSorin at ≥14 days post PCR. Only the Abbott assay had a diagnostic specificity of 100% (CI: 91-100%). EuroImmun cross-reacted in 3 non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections and 2 controls. The DiaSorin displayed more false negative results and cross-reacted in six cases across all conditions tested. EDI had one cross-reactive sample. The Healgen rapid test showed excellent sensitivity and specificity. Overall, concordance of the assays ranged from 76.1% to 97.9%.

Conclusions Serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 showed good analytical performance. The head-to-head analysis of samples revealed differences in results that may be linked to the use of nucleocapsid or spike proteins. The point of care device tested demonstrated adequate performance for antibody detection.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethical approval for this study was waived by *The University of East Anglia Research Ethics Committee and the UK NHS Research Ethics committee because the study was based on archived and fully anonymized samples.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I 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).

Yes

I 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.

Yes

Footnotes

Criteria for authorship: IP has provided substantial contributions to conception and design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, to drafting the article and revising it. EE, AT, GJ, WDF and SD provided substantial contributions to conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data and revision of the article.
Competing interest declaration: The authors declare no competing financial, professional, or personal interests that might have influenced the performance or presentation of the work described in this manuscript.