Evaluation of Three Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays and Their Performance in Two-Test Algorithms

Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucleocapsid antibody tests (Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody) and one spike protein antibody test (DiaSorin IgG) were included. We assessed sensitivity using 128 serum samples from symptomatic PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and specificity using 1,204 samples submitted for routine serology prior to COVID-19’s emergence, plus 64 pandemic-era samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. ABSTRACT Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucleocapsid antibody tests (Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody) and one spike protein antibody test (DiaSorin IgG) were included. We assessed sensitivity using 128 serum samples from symptomatic PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and specificity using 1,204 samples submitted for routine serology prior to COVID-19’s emergence, plus 64 pandemic-era samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Assays were evaluated as stand-alone tests and as components of a two-test algorithm in which positive results obtained using one assay were verified using a second assay. The two nucleocapsid antibody tests were more sensitive than the spike protein antibody test overall (70% and 70% versus 57%; P ≤ 0.003), with pronounced differences observed using samples collected 7 to 14 days after symptom onset. All three assays were comparably sensitive (≥89%; P ≥ 0.13) using samples collected >14 days after symptom onset. Specificity was higher using the nucleocapsid antibody tests (99.3% and 99.7%) than using the spike protein antibody test (97.8%; P ≤ 0.002). When any two assays were paired in a two-test algorithm, the specificity was 99.9% (P < 0.0001 to 0.25 compared with the individual assays), and the positive predictive value (PPV) improved substantially, with a minimal effect on the negative predictive value (NPV). In conclusion, two nucleocapsid antibody tests outperformed a spike protein antibody test. Pairing two different serologic tests in a two-test algorithm improves the PPV, compared with the individual assays alone, while maintaining the NPV.

[1]  Dena R. Voss,et al.  Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays , 2020, The journal of applied laboratory medicine.

[2]  H. Haslacher,et al.  Side by side comparison of three fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays with a focus on specificity , 2020, medRxiv.

[3]  Linqi Zhang,et al.  Human neutralizing antibodies elicited by SARS-CoV-2 infection , 2020, Nature.

[4]  Akihide Ryo,et al.  Interpreting Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2. , 2020, JAMA.

[5]  Sheng Zhang,et al.  Profile of RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2: A Preliminary Study From 56 COVID-19 Patients , 2020, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[6]  Y. Yazdanpanah,et al.  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2−Specific Antibody Responses in Coronavirus Disease Patients , 2020, Emerging infectious diseases.

[7]  P. Vollmar,et al.  Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019 , 2020, Nature.

[8]  Tara C Smith,et al.  Report from the American Society for Microbiology COVID-19 International Summit, 23 March 2020: Value of Diagnostic Testing for SARS–CoV-2/COVID-19 , 2020, mBio.

[9]  A. Hinckley,et al.  Updated CDC Recommendation for Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease , 2019, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[10]  S. Morimoto,et al.  Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the quantitative/qualitative analysis of plant secondary metabolites , 2017, Journal of Natural Medicines.

[11]  W. Bower,et al.  Clinical Framework and Medical Countermeasure Use During an Anthrax Mass-Casualty Incident. , 2015, MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports.

[12]  K. Workowski,et al.  Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015. , 2015, MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports.

[13]  G. Pugliese,et al.  Severe Streptococcus pyogenes Infections, United Kingdom, 2003–2004 , 2008, Emerging infectious diseases.

[14]  M. Hausmann,et al.  Performance characteristics of the ARCHITECT anti-HCV assay. , 2005, Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology.

[15]  P. Woo,et al.  Differential Sensitivities of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus Spike Polypeptide Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and SARS Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Protein ELISA for Serodiagnosis of SARS Coronavirus Pneumonia , 2005, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[16]  Y. Leo,et al.  Profiles of Antibody Responses against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Recombinant Proteins and Their Potential Use as Diagnostic Markers , 2004, Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology.

[17]  I. Hernández-Aguado,et al.  False-Positive Tests for Syphilis Associated with Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Hepatitis B Virus Infection among Intravenous Drug Abusers , 1998, European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

[18]  David C. Yeo,et al.  Brief clinical evaluation of six high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assays , 2020, Journal of Clinical Virology.

[19]  K. Workowski,et al.  Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2015 , 2015 .