ABSTRACT
Background In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous new serological test systems for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have become available quickly. However, the clinical performance of many of them is still insufficiently described. Therefore we compared three commercial, CE-marked, SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays side by side.
Methods We included a total of 1,154 specimens from pre-COVID-19 times and 65 samples from COVID-19 patients (≥14 days after symptom onset) to evaluate the test performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin.
Results All three assays presented with high specificities: 99.2% (98.6-99.7) for Abbott, 99.7% (99.2-100.0) for Roche, and 98.3% (97.3-98.9) for DiaSorin. In contrast to the manufacturers’ specifications, sensitivities only ranged from 83.1% to 89.2%. Although the three methods were in good agreement (Cohen’s Kappa 0.71-0.87), McNemar’s test revealed significant differences between results obtained from Roche and DiaSorin. However, at low seroprevalences, the minor differences in specificity resulted in profound discrepancies of positive predictability at 1% seroprevalence: 52.3% (36.2-67.9), 77.6% (52.8-91.5), and 32.6% (23.6-43.1) for Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin, respectively.
Conclusion We find diagnostically relevant differences in specificities for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin that have a significant impact on the positive predictability of these tests.
Competing Interest Statement
The Department of Laboratory Medicine (TP, NP, PQ, RM, PM, RS, OFW, CJB, HH) holds a grant for evaluating an in-vitro diagnostic device from Roche. Furthermore, the Department received financial compensations for advertising space at scientific symposia from Roche, Abbott, and DiaSorin. NP received a travel grant from DiaSorin. SH does receive unrestricted research grants (GSK, Boehringer, Menarini, Chiesi, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Novartis, Air Liquide, Vivisol, Pfizer, TEVA) for the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of COPD and Respiratory Epidemiology, and is on advisory boards for GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Menarini, Chiesi, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Roche, Abbvie, Takeda, and TEVA for respiratory oncology and COPD. OCB reports grants from GSK, grants from Menarini, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Astra, grants from MSD, grants from Pfizer, and grants from Chiesi, outside the submitted work. PQ is on an advisory board from Roche Austria, and reports personal fees from Takeda outside the submitted work. DA reports personal fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Merck, Celltrion, Gilead, Galappagos, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi & Sandoz outside the submitted work. HH reports grants from Glock Health, Science and Research outside the submitted work.
Clinical Trial
no clinical trial
Funding Statement
No funding specific to the work presented was received. Some samples used as negative controls were collected in the framework of the LEAD-Study, which is funded by the Ludwig Boltzmann Society (Austria).
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:
This evaluation was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the Medical University of Vienna (1424/2020).
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
Data Availability
Data will be made freely available after peer-review. Until this, data can be requested from the corresponding author.
