Performance of Abbott Architect, Ortho Vitros, and Euroimmun Assays in Detecting Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Mahajan, S.; Redlich, C. A.; Wisnewski, A. V.; Fazen, L. E.; Rao, L. V.; Kuppusamy, K.; Ko, A. I.; Krumholz, H. M.
Show abstract
BackgroundSeveral serological assays have been developed to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, but evidence about their comparative performance is limited. We sought to assess the sensitivity of four anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) in individuals with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. MethodsWe obtained sera from 36 individuals with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and May 2020. We evaluated samples collected at around 21 days ({+/-}14 days) after their initial PCR test using 3 commercially available ELISA assays, two anti-spike (Ortho- Clinical Diagnostics Vitros, and Euroimmun) and one anti-nucleocapsid (Abbott Architect), and a Yale-developed anti-spike ELISA test. We determined the sensitivity of the tests and compared their results. The Euroimmun and Yale ELISA had an equivocal and indeterminate category, which were considered as both negative and positive. ResultsAmong the 36 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection, mean age was 43 ({+/-}13) years and 19 (53%) were female. The sensitivities of the tests were not significantly different (Abbott Architect, Ortho Vitros, Euroimmmun, and Yale assays: 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71- 95), 94% (95% CI, 81-99), 86% (95% CI, 71-95), and 94% (95% CI, 81-99), respectively; p- value=0.464). The sensitivities of the Euroimmun and Yale ELISA tests increased when the equivocal/indeterminate results were considered positive (97% [95% CI, 85-100] and 100% [95% CI, 90-100], respectively), but were not significantly different from other tests (p=0.082). The cross-correlation coefficient ranged from 0.85-0.98 between three anti-spike protein assays (Ortho Vitros, Euroimmun, Yale) and was 0.58-0.71 between the three anti-spike protein assays and the anti-nucleocapsid assay (Abbott). ConclusionThe sensitivities of four anti-SARS-CoV-2 protein assays did not significantly differ, although the sample size was small. Sensitivity also depended on the interpretation of equivocal and indeterminate results. The strongest correlations were present for the three anti- spike proteins assays. These findings suggest that individual test characteristics and the correlation between different tests should be considered when comparing or aggregating data across different populations studies for serologic surveillance of past SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of three SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, three rapid lateral flow tests and a novel bead-based affinity surrogate test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human serum 95%
- Comparison of sixteen serological SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in sixteen clinical laboratories 94%
- Estimating the false positive rate of highly automated SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical evaluation of BD Veritor™ SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A+B Assay for point-of-care (POC) System 94%
- Comparison of LIAISON QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus with QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus 94%
- Evaluation of the INDICAID™ COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test in symptomatic populations and asymptomatic community testing 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing the performance of a serological point-of-care test in measuring detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 95%
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 95%
- Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance evaluation of the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay 95%
- Diagnostic comparison of three fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay platforms for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 94%
- Comparative evaluation of six immunoassays for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Validation and Performance Comparison of Three SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays 96%
- Longitudinal detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses with different serological methods 94%
- Diagnosis value of SARS-CoV-2 antigen/antibody combined testing using rapid diagnostic tests at hospital admission 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.