Back

Clinical performance of a chemiluminescence SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay in a cohort of healthcare workers, blood donors and COVID-19 patients.

Rangel, G. A.; Lopez, D.; Chavarria, A.; Mudarra, L.; Britton, G. B.; Villarreal, A. E.

2023-03-10 infectious diseases
10.1101/2023.03.09.23287052 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionSerological detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 has become an essential tool to test vaccine efficacy and epidemiological surveillance of COVID-19. There have been limited published studies documenting the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays within hispanic populations. Materials and methodsWe evaluated the diagnostic performance of a chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (CLIA) on a set of 1,035 samples including pre-pandemic samples, healthcare workers (HCW), blood donors (BD) and COVID-19 positive confirmed by RT-PCR collected from April to December 2020. ResultsThrough a ROC curve the CLIA test had a high diagnostic performance, with an AUC of 0.9854 (CI95% 95.68-100), P <0.0001. The analysis yielded a cut-off point 0.1950, sensitivity of 98.4% (CI95% 95 91.54-99.9), and specificity of 93.8% (CI95% 79.8 - 98.9). The diagnostic performance was also evaluated comparing the results with those obtained using other diagnostic techniques. Substantial agreement with the lateral flow chromatography and RT-PCR tests was found, and a high level of agreement with ELISA, with %PPA of 91.3 (CI95% 84.0-95.5), % NPA of 97.7 (CI95% 96.3-98.6), % OPA of 97.7 (CI95% 96.3-98.6) and Cohens kappa value of 90.4 (CI95% 85.8-94.9). A logistic regression was used to determine which of the independent variables predicted reactivity to CLIA test. A higher age was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.043 (CI95% 1.022-1.065), while the presence of at least one chronic disease was associated with an OR of 5.649 (CI95% 3.089-10.329) greater likelihood of reactivity. ConclusionsCLIA test exhibited excellent performance making it a suitable test for seroprevalence surveillance at the community level.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.4%
2
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
3
Journal of Virological Methods
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
5
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.4%
6
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.0%
7
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.7%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
9
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
10
Journal of Immunological Methods
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
50% of probability mass above
11
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
12
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.7%
13
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.6%
14
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
15
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
16
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
17
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
19
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
20
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
22
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
23
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
24
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
25
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
26
Pathogens
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
28
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
29
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
30
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%