%0 Journal Article %A Benjamin Meyer %A Giulia Torriani %A Sabine Yerly %A Lena Mazza %A Adrien Calame %A Isabelle Arm-Vernez %A Gert Zimmer %A Thomas Agoritsas %A Jérôme Stirnemann %A Hervé Spechbach %A Idris Guessous %A Silvia Stringhini %A Jérôme Pugin %A Pascale Roux-Lombard %A Lionel Fontao %A Claire-Anne Siegrist %A Isabella Eckerle %A Nicolas Vuilleumier %A Laurent Kaiser %A for the Geneva Center for Emerging Viral Diseases %T Validation of a commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological Immunoassay %D 2020 %R 10.1101/2020.05.02.20080879 %J medRxiv %P 2020.05.02.20080879 %X Objectives To validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19.Methods In this unmatched (1:1) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 176 controls collected before SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay.Results COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had high diagnostic accuracies with AUCs of 0.992 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.986-0.996) and 0.977 (95%CI: 0.963-0.990), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.008). Taking an assessed 15% inter-assay imprecision into account, an optimized IgG ratio cut-off > 1.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 98–100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 97-100). A 0.5 cut-off displayed a 97% sensitivity (95%CI: 93–99) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 93–99). Substituting these thresholds for the manufacturer’s, improved assay performance, leaving 12% of IgG ratios indeterminate between 0.5-1.5.Conclusions The Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in patient samples, with no obvious gains from IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rule-in and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals in our study population have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not. IgG serology should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage.Competing Interest StatementNicolas Vuilleumier received restricted research grants from Roche.Funding StatementThis work was entirely supported by the Center for Emerging Viral Diseases, a grant from the Private Foundation of the Geneva University Hospitals, the Pictet Charitable Foundation, the Ancrage Foundation and by research funds from the Center of Vaccinology. The manufacturer of the ELISA assays (Euroimmun AG, Lübeck, Germany) had no implications in the study.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll 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 will be made available upon reasonable request or after accepted publication of the manuscript. %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/05/06/2020.05.02.20080879.full.pdf