Abstract
Background An evident geographical variation in the SARS-CoV-2 spread requires seroprevalence studies based on local tests with robust validation against already available antibody tests and neutralization assays. This report summarizes the evaluation of antibody tests used in the representative population-based serological study of SARS-CoV-2 in Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Methods We used three different antibody tests throughout the study: chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) CoronaPass total antibodies test, and ELISA SARS-CoV-2-IgG-EIA-BEST. Clinical sensitivity was estimated with the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test as the gold standard and specificity in pre-pandemic sera samples using the cut-off recommended by manufacturers. Paired and unpaired serum sets were used. Measures of concordance were also calculated in the seroprevalence study sample against the microneutralization test (MNA).
Findings Sensitivity was equal to 91.1% (95% CI: 78.8–97.5) and 90% (95% CI: 76.4–96.4) for ELISA Coronapass and ELISA Vector-Best respectively. It was equal to 63.1% (95% CI (50.2–74.7) for CMIA Abbott. Specificity was equal to 100% for all the tests. Comparison of ROCs for three tests has shown lower AUC for CMIA Abbott, but not for ELISA Coronapass and CMIA Abbott. The cutoff SC/O ratio of 0.28 for CMIA-Abbott resulted in a sensitivity of 80% at the same full level of specificity. In less than one-third of the population-based study participants with positive antibody test results, we detected neutralizing antibodies in titers 1:80 and above. There was a moderate correlation between antibody assays results and MNA.
Interpretation Our validation study encourages the use of local antibody tests for population-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and sets the reference for the seroprevalence correction. Available tests are sensitive enough to detect antibodies in most individuals with previous positive PCR tests with a follow-up of more than 5 months. The Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG’s sensitivity can be significantly improved by incorporating a new cut-off. Relying on manufacturers’ test characteristics for correction of reported prevalence estimates may introduce bias to the study results.
Funding Polymetal International plc
Competing Interest Statement
Anton Barchuk reports personal fees from MSD, Biocad and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work.
Clinical Trial
ISRCTN11060415; NCT04406038
Funding Statement
The study was funded by Polymetal International plc. The main funder had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the report or decision to submit the publication. The European University at St. Petersburg, clinic "Scandinavia" and Smorodintsev Research Institute of Influenza had access to the study data and The European University at St. Petersburg had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. Part of this study performed at Smorodintsev Research Institute of Influenza was funded by the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education as part of the World-class Research Center program: Advanced Digital Technologies (contract No. 075-15-2020-904, dated 16.11.2020).
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:
The study was approved by the Research Planning Board of European University at St. Petersburg (on May 20, 2020) and the Ethic Committee of the Clinic "Scandinavia" (on May 26, 2020). All research was performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all participants of the study. The study was registered with the following identifiers: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04406038, submitted on May 26, 2020, date of registration - May 28,2020) and ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN11060415, submitted on May 26, 2020, date of registration - May 28,2020). The amendment, which included a test validation study, was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Clinic "Scandinavia" on October 2, 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
Study data and code is available online.
https://github.com/eusporg/spb_covid_study20/tree/master/validation_of_covid_tests
