Performance of an automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay in prepandemic cohorts
Riester, E.; Krieter, B.; Findeisen, P.; Laimighofer, M.; Schoenfeld, K.; Laengin, T.; Niederhauser, C.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe Elecsys(R) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics) was developed to provide an accurate and reliable method for the detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We evaluated the specificity of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay in prepandemic sample cohorts across five sites in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. MethodsSpecificity of the immunoassay was evaluated using anonymised, frozen, residual serum and/or plasma samples from blood donors or routine diagnostic testing. All samples were collected before September 2019 and therefore presumed negative for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Cohorts included samples from blood donors, pregnant women and paediatric patients. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. ResultsOverall specificities for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay in 9575 samples from blood donors (n = 6714) and diagnostic specimens (n = 2861) were 99.82% (95% CI 99.69-99.91) and 99.93% (95% CI 99.75-99.99), respectively. Among 2256 samples from pregnant women, specificity was 99.91% (95% CI 99.68-99.99). Among 205 paediatric samples, specificity was 100% (95% CI 98.22-100). ConclusionThe Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated a very high specificity across blood donor samples and diagnostic specimens from Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Our findings support the use of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay as a potential tool for determination of an immune response following previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the general population, including in blood donors, pregnant women and paediatric populations.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Pushing beyond specifications: Evaluation of linearity and clinical performance of a fully automated SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay for reliable quantification in blood and other materials outside recommendations 94%
- Clinical evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay on a fully automated system for rapid on-demand testing in the hospital setting 94%
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative sensitivity evaluation for 122 CE-marked SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid tests 93%
- Serological assessment of SARS-CoV-2 exposure in northern Sweden by the use of at-home sampling to meet geographical challenges in rural regions 92%
- Detection of neutralising antibodies to SARS coronavirus 2 to determine population exposure in Scottish blood donors between March and May 2020 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Lateral Flow Assay for antibody prevalence studies following vaccine roll out: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study 93%
- Antibody testing for COVID-19: A report from the National COVID Scientific Advisory Panel 91%
- Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study. 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 95%
- Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use of Abbott PanBio - A WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 94%
- Evaluation of performance of two SARS-CoV-2 Rapid whole-blood finger-stick IgM-IgGCombined Antibody Tests 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.