TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of two commercial and two non-commercial immunoassays for the detection of prior infection to SARS-CoV-2 JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.06.24.20139006 SP - 2020.06.24.20139006 AU - Eric J. Nilles AU - Elizabeth W. Karlson AU - Maia Norman AU - Tal Gilboa AU - Stephanie Fischinger AU - Caroline Atyeo AU - Guohai Zhou AU - Christopher L. Bennett AU - Nicole V. Tolan AU - Karina Oganezova AU - David R. Walt AU - Galit Alter AU - Daimon P. Simmons AU - Peter Schur AU - Petr Jarolim AU - Lindsey R. Baden Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/26/2020.06.24.20139006.abstract N2 - Background Seroepidemiology is an important tool to characterize the epidemiology and immunobiology of SARS-CoV-2 but many immunoassays have not been externally validated raising questions about reliability of study findings. To ensure meaningful data, particularly in a low seroprevalence population, assays need to be rigorously characterized with high specificity.Methods We evaluated two commercial (Roche Diagnostics and Epitope Diagnostics IgM/IgG) and two non-commercial (Simoa and Ragon/MGH IgG) immunoassays against 68 confirmed positive and 232 pre-pandemic negative controls. Sensitivity was stratified by time from symptom onset. The Simoa multiplex assay applied three pre-defined algorithm models to determine sample result.Results The Roche and Ragon/MGH IgG assays each registered 1/232 false positive, the primary Simoa model registered 2/232 false positives, and the Epitope registered 2/230 and 3/230 false positives for the IgG and IgM assays respectively. Sensitivity >21 days post symptom-onset was 100% for all assays except Epitope IgM, but lower and/or with greater variability between assays for samples collected 9-14 days (67-100%) and 15-21 days (69-100%) post-symptom onset. The Simoa and Epitope IgG assays demonstrated excellent sensitivity earlier in the disease course. The Roche and Ragon/MGH assays were less sensitive during early disease, particularly among immunosuppressed individuals.Conclusions The Epitope IgG demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity. The Roche and Ragon/MGH IgG assays registered rare false positives with lower early sensitivity. The Simoa assay primary model had excellent sensitivity and few false positives.Summary SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays can be valuable tools for informing the global response, but many currently available assays have not been independently validated. We conducted a performance assessment of four assays including the Roche Diagnostics and Epitope Diagnostics immunoassays.Competing Interest StatementDW has a financial interest in Quanterix Corporation, a company that develops the Simoa platform. He is an inventor of the Simoa technology, a founder of the company and also serves on its Board of Directors. DWs interests were reviewed and are managed by BWH and Mass General Brigham Health Care in accordance with their conflict of interest policies. DRW, TG and MN have a patent application that has been licensed by BWH for the Simoa assay. The assays in this publication have been licensed by BWH to Quanterix Corporation. All other authors have no potential conflict of interest.Funding StatementThis work was largely funded by Brigham Health. EN is supported by CDC U01 GH002238. LB is supported by NIH UM1AI069412 and UL1TR001102. D.S. is supported by NIH K08 AR075850.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:The use of study samples and data was approved by the Mass General Brigham (MGB) (previously Partners Healthcare System) Institutional Review Board.All 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.YesThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request. ER -