RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparative Evaluation of Three Serologic Assays for the Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.08.04.20167643
DO 10.1101/2020.08.04.20167643
A1 Hogan, Keenan O.
A1 Klippel, Dave
A1 Plapp, Fred V.
A1 Liesman, Rachael M.
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/05/2020.08.04.20167643.abstract
AB Background and aims Serologic assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies are being developed and approved rapidly with limited external validation. Accurate diagnostics are an essential component to pandemic management and public health.Materials and methods Residual serum samples (N=113) from patients who were evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 infection status by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were retrospectively tested in parallel across three automated SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays: Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG, Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody, and Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG.Results Testing of 51 PCR-positive and 62 PCR-negative patients demonstrated qualitative inter-test agreement of 96% overall, 100% in PCR-negative patients, 88% in early positive samples (0-13 days post positive PCR), and 100% in convalescent samples (14+ days post positive PCR).Calculated kappa values for paired inter-test agreement ranged 0.93-0.96. Compared to PCR, overall percent positive agreement ranged from 82-86% (100% for convalescent samples) and percent negative agreement was 100% for each assay.Conclusion This study demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy and inter-test agreement for three automated SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays. External validation of serologic assays is critical to ensure diagnostic accuracy and appropriate utilization of critical resources.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.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:University of Kansas Medical Center Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board Study #00145715All 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.YesNo supplementary material or external datasets are available for this article.