PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Dinesh Mohanraj AU - Alison Whitelegg AU - Kelly Bicknell AU - Malini Bhole AU - Lorna Taylor AU - Caroline Webber TI - Comparative assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serology in healthcare workers with Abbott Architect, Roche Elecsys and The Binding site ELISA immunoassays AID - 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253518 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.03.19.21253518 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/24/2021.03.19.21253518.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/24/2021.03.19.21253518.full AB - Purpose SARS-CoV-2 serology testing is key for assessing seroprevalence and antibody response post-vaccination in immunocompromised patients. Evaluation of current SARS-CoV-2 serological assays have been performed on samples from severe COVID-19 hospitalised patients. However, robust assay development requires assessment in asymptomatic and non-hospitalised individuals to determine if serological assays are sensitive to detect waning and mild antibody responses. Our study evaluated the performance characteristics between two high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 IgG nucleocapsid assays (Abbott and Roche) and The binding site (TBS) Anti-Spike IgG/A/M ELISA kit in healthcare workers.Methods 236 samples were collected from Portsmouth Hospital University NHS Trust (PHU) and The Dudley Group NHS Trust and analysed for SARS-CoV-2 serology. We derived concordance, agreement and assay performance as well as using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to redefine the assay threshold of the Abbott assay.Results Result concordance between the Abbott and TBS was 66%. Discrepant samples were analysed using the Roche assay which showed 100% agreement with the TBS assay. In samples analysed >58 days post-PCR, the sensitivity of Abbott and Roche was 100%. In samples analysed >100 days post-PCR the sensitivity of the Abbott assay dropped to 77.2% but remained at 100% for the Roche assay. A redefined Abbott threshold of 0.64 increased the sensitivity to 90% giving results similar to Roche and TBS assaysConclusion This study demonstrated Abbott assay had a lower sensitivity in comparison to TBS and Roche. Furthermore, TBS can be implemented as a viable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 serology testing where high-throughput assays are not available on site.Trial registration number and date of registrationNot applicable.Trial registration number, date of registration followed by “retrospectively registered”Not applicable.Abstract Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology testing is key for assessing seroprevalence and antibody response post-vaccination in immunocompromised patients. Here we performed a comparison between two high-throughput nucleocapsid assays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2) and The Binding Site (TBS) anti-Spike IgG/A/M-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA kit. 236 samples were collected across 2 sites, Portsmouth Hospital University NHS Trust (PHU) and The Dudley Group NHS Trust. We derived concordance, agreement and assay performance as well as using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to redefine the assay threshold of the Abbott assay. Result concordance between the Abbott and TBS was 66%. Discrepant samples were analysed using the Roche assay which showed 100% agreement with the TBS assay. In samples analysed >58 days post-PCR, the sensitivity of Abbott and Roche was 100%. In samples analysed >100 days post-PCR the sensitivity of the Abbott assay dropped to 77.2% but remained at 100% for the Roche assay. A redefined Abbott threshold of 0.64 increased the sensitivity to 90% giving results similar to the Roche and TBS assays. In conclusion, this study demonstrated Abbott assay had a lower sensitivity in comparison to TBS and Roche. This study established TBS can be implemented as a viable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 serology testing where high-throughput assays are not available on site. Furthermore, anti-spike assays, such as TBS, could be used to monitor vaccination responses to deduce SARS-CoV-2 population-immunity. Further optimisation studies are required to evaluate the performance characteristics of these assays which could facilitate widescale sero-epidemiological surveillance.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://www.fda.gov/media/137605/download https://www.fda.gov/media/137383/download https://www.bindingsite.com/en/our-products/covid-19/sars-cov-2-elisa/performance-characteristics/precision Funding StatementThe Binding Site Ltd (Birmingham, UK) provided the study with free of cost evaluation kits. The Department of Immunology, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, is supported by Division of Clinical service Delivery, Department of Blood Sciences, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Research Ethics Committee: Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust REC. Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham. PO6 3LY. Stated Decision by PHU REC (local REC): Dear Dinesh, RE: Service Evaluation Project Title: Comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serology in healthcare workers with Abbott Architect, Roche Elecsys and the Binding site ELISA immunoassays. Thank you for contacting the Portsmouth Research Ethics Committee to inform us of your intention to run a project at Queen Alexandra Hospital. Based upon the information we have received from you and the differentiating criterion we are satisfied that the project is a Service Evaluation. Conditions: 1.This letter is valid only for the documents detailed below. Any future changes or amendments should be notified to the research ethics office for assessment before implementation. 2.As this project is not considered to be research you are not required to secure Research Ethics or NHS Research confirmations, however your work must nevertheless meet accepted standards of ethical practice and be compliant with UK regulations. Research Ethics Facilitator at PHU REC: Ms Beth Giddins. Email: Beth.Giddins@porthosp.nhs.ukAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData available upon request