Abstract
Introduction SARS-CoV2 serology testing is multipurpose provided to choose an efficient test. We evaluated and compared 4 different commercial serology tests, three of them had the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Our goal was to provide new data to help to guide the interpretation and the choice of the serological tests.
Methods Four commercial tests were evaluated: Cobas®Roche®(total anti-N antibodies), VIDAS®Biomerieux®(IgM and IgG anti-RBD antibodies), Mindray®(IgM and IgG anti-N and anti-RBD antibodies) and Access®Beckman Coulter®(IgG anti-RBD antibodies). Were tested: a positive panel (n=72 sera) obtained from COVID-19 confirmed patients and a negative panel (n=119) of pre-pandemic sera. Were determined the analytical performances and was drawn the ROC curve to assess the manufacturer’s threshold.
Results A large range of variability between the tests was found. Mindray®IgG and Cobas® tests showed the best overall sensitivity 79,2%CI95%[67,9-87,8]. Cobas® showed the best sensitivity after D14; 85,4%CI95%[72,2-93,9]. The best specificity was noted for Cobas®, VIDAS®IgG and Access® IgG(100%CI95%[96,9-100]). Access® had the lower sensitivity even after D14 (55,5% CI95%[43,4-67,3]). VIDAS®IgM and Mindray®IgM tests showed the lowest specificity and sensitivity rates. Overall, only 43 out of 72 sera gave concordant results (59,7%). Retained cut-offs for a significantly better sensitivity and accuracy, without altering significantly the specificity, were: 0,87 for Vidas®IgM(p=0,01), 0,55 for Vidas®IgG(p=0,05) and 0,14 for Access®(p<10−4).
Conclusion Although FDA approved, each laboratory should realize its own evaluation for commercial tests. Tests variability may raise some concerns that seroprevalence studies may vary significantly based on the used serology test.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
MINISTER OF EDUCATION
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:
Ethics committee/IRB of INSTITUT PASTEUR OF TUNIS gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
