Performance characteristics of five immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2: a head-to-head benchmark comparison - 26/11/20
The National SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assay Evaluation Group†
, Teresa Street, David I Stuart, Angela Sweed, Adan Taylor, Hannah Thraves, Hoi P Tsang, Marije K Verheul, Richard Vipond, Timothy M Walker, Susan Wareing, Yolanda Warren, Charlie Wells, Clare Wilson, Kate Withycombe, Rebecca K Young
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
Article gratuit.
Connectez-vous pour en bénéficier!
Summary |
Background |
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a global pandemic in 2020. Testing is crucial for mitigating public health and economic effects. Serology is considered key to population-level surveillance and potentially individual-level risk assessment. However, immunoassay performance has not been compared on large, identical sample sets. We aimed to investigate the performance of four high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays and a novel 384-well ELISA.
Methods |
We did a head-to-head assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), SARS-CoV-2 Total assay (Siemens, Munich, Germany), and a novel 384-well ELISA (the Oxford immunoassay). We derived sensitivity and specificity from 976 pre-pandemic blood samples (collected between Sept 4, 2014, and Oct 4, 2016) and 536 blood samples from patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, collected at least 20 days post symptom onset (collected between Feb 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess assay thresholds.
Findings |
At the manufacturers’ thresholds, for the Abbott assay sensitivity was 92·7% (95% CI 90·2–94·8) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4–100%); for the DiaSorin assay sensitivity was 96·2% (94·2–97·7) and specificity was 98·9% (98·0–99·4); for the Oxford immunoassay sensitivity was 99·1% (97·8–99·7) and specificity was 99·0% (98·1–99·5); for the Roche assay sensitivity was 97·2% (95·4–98·4) and specificity was 99·8% (99·3–100); and for the Siemens assay sensitivity was 98·1% (96·6–99·1) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4–100%). All assays achieved a sensitivity of at least 98% with thresholds optimised to achieve a specificity of at least 98% on samples taken 30 days or more post symptom onset.
Interpretation |
Four commercial, widely available assays and a scalable 384-well ELISA can be used for SARS-CoV-2 serological testing to achieve sensitivity and specificity of at least 98%. The Siemens assay and Oxford immunoassay achieved these metrics without further optimisation. This benchmark study in immunoassay assessment should enable refinements of testing strategies and the best use of serological testing resource to benefit individuals and population health.
Funding |
Public Health England and UK National Institute for Health Research.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Vol 20 - N° 12
P. 1390-1400 - décembre 2020 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Comparison of molecular testing strategies for COVID-19 control: a mathematical modelling study
- Nicholas C Grassly, Margarita Pons-Salort, Edward P K Parker, Peter J White, Neil M Ferguson, Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team, Kylie Ainslie, Marc Baguelin, Samir Bhatt, Adhiratha Boonyasiri, Nick Brazeau, Lorenzo Cattarino, Helen Coupland, Zulma Cucunuba, Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg, Amy Dighe, Christl Donnelly, Sabine L van Elsland, Richard FitzJohn, Seth Flaxman, Keith Fraser, Katy Gaythorpe, Will Green, Arran Hamlet, Wes Hinsley, Natsuko Imai, Edward Knock, Daniel Laydon, Thomas Mellan, Swapnil Mishra, Gemma Nedjati-Gilani, Pierre Nouvellet, Lucy Okell, Manon Ragonnet-Cronin, Hayley A Thompson, H. Juliette T Unwin, Michaela Vollmer, Erik Volz, Caroline Walters, Yuanrong Wang, Oliver J Watson, Charles Whittaker, Lilith Whittles, Xiaoyue Xi
- Risk of COVID-19 in health-care workers in Denmark: an observational cohort study
- Kasper Iversen, Henning Bundgaard, Rasmus B Hasselbalch, Jonas H Kristensen, Pernille B Nielsen, Mia Pries-Heje, Andreas D Knudsen, Casper E Christensen, Kamille Fogh, Jakob B Norsk, Ove Andersen, Thea K Fischer, Claus Antonio Juul Jensen, Margit Larsen, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Jørgen Rungby, Sisse B Ditlev, Ida Hageman, Rasmus Møgelvang, Christoffer E Hother, Mikkel Gybel-Brask, Erik Sørensen, Lene Harritshøj, Fredrik Folke, Curt Sten, Thomas Benfield, Susanne Dam Nielsen, Henrik Ullum
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.