Specificity testing by point prevalence as a simple assessment strategy using the Roche Elecsys® anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay.
Aged
Antibodies, Viral
/ blood
COVID-19
/ diagnosis
COVID-19 Serological Testing
/ methods
Female
Germany
Humans
Immunoassay
/ methods
Laboratories
Male
Middle Aged
Predictive Value of Tests
Prevalence
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
SARS-CoV-2
Sensitivity and Specificity
Validation Studies as Topic
Anti-SARS-CoV-2
COVID-19
Roche
Serological assay
Validation
Verification
Journal
International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases
ISSN: 1878-3511
Titre abrégé: Int J Infect Dis
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 9610933
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
03
12
2020
revised:
04
02
2021
accepted:
05
02
2021
pubmed:
13
2
2021
medline:
25
5
2021
entrez:
12
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is mandatory for the diagnosis, retrospective assessment of disease progression, and correct evaluation of the current infection situation in the population. Many such assays have been launched by various manufacturers. Unfortunately, the new US Food and Drug Administration emergency use regulations have resulted in a situation where laboratories have to perform their own validation studies but many of these laboratories do not have the biobank needed to conduct the studies. We introduce a method that allows institutions to quickly perform a verification study in a low-prevalence infection situation. As proof of concept, we used the Roche Elecsys® anti-SARS-CoV-2 electrochemiluminescence immunoassay and an SAP-based hospital information system. The Shenzhen YHLO Biotech IgM and IgG assay targeting other surface patterns was used as a confirmatory test. The Roche assay demonstrated a limit of detection of 0.069 cutoff index and successfully passed the performance validation according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute EP15-A3. The study population of 627 inpatients has a median age of 64 years, and approximately 13% of the group were under intensive care at the respective time point. All patients included tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (cobas® 6800, Roche, Mannheim, Germany). Only one false-positive result was obtained, resulting in a specificity for the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 test of 99.84% and a negative predictive value of 99.98%. The anonymized use of residual material enables quick evaluation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, as shown in this work with the Roche Elecsys assay. Comparison of the control population with economic data makes it possible to validate the sampling set and therefore to determine diagnostic specificity. By use of the approach chosen, it was shown that the Roche test achieved very good results in terms of diagnostic specificity, reproducibility, and limit of detection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is mandatory for the diagnosis, retrospective assessment of disease progression, and correct evaluation of the current infection situation in the population. Many such assays have been launched by various manufacturers. Unfortunately, the new US Food and Drug Administration emergency use regulations have resulted in a situation where laboratories have to perform their own validation studies but many of these laboratories do not have the biobank needed to conduct the studies.
METHODS
METHODS
We introduce a method that allows institutions to quickly perform a verification study in a low-prevalence infection situation. As proof of concept, we used the Roche Elecsys® anti-SARS-CoV-2 electrochemiluminescence immunoassay and an SAP-based hospital information system. The Shenzhen YHLO Biotech IgM and IgG assay targeting other surface patterns was used as a confirmatory test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The Roche assay demonstrated a limit of detection of 0.069 cutoff index and successfully passed the performance validation according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute EP15-A3. The study population of 627 inpatients has a median age of 64 years, and approximately 13% of the group were under intensive care at the respective time point. All patients included tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (cobas® 6800, Roche, Mannheim, Germany). Only one false-positive result was obtained, resulting in a specificity for the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 test of 99.84% and a negative predictive value of 99.98%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The anonymized use of residual material enables quick evaluation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, as shown in this work with the Roche Elecsys assay. Comparison of the control population with economic data makes it possible to validate the sampling set and therefore to determine diagnostic specificity. By use of the approach chosen, it was shown that the Roche test achieved very good results in terms of diagnostic specificity, reproducibility, and limit of detection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33578017
pii: S1201-9712(21)00110-7
doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.024
pmc: PMC7872847
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
632-638Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021 Jan 1;145(1):32-38
pubmed: 33367664
J Clin Virol. 2020 Nov;132:104613
pubmed: 32942137
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 25;6:CD013652
pubmed: 32584464
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 May 26;58(6):
pubmed: 32277023
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 30;383(5):494-496
pubmed: 32492294
J Med Virol. 2020 Oct;92(10):2243-2247
pubmed: 32510168
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Sep 1;173(5):362-367
pubmed: 32491919
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):778-785
pubmed: 32198501
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 31;71(11):2996-3001
pubmed: 32511679
Biomed J. 2020 Aug;43(4):314-317
pubmed: 32563697
J Med Virol. 2020 Sep;92(9):1695-1698
pubmed: 32383179
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 03;69(13):377-381
pubmed: 32240128
Med Clin (Barc). 2020 Nov 13;155(9):417-418
pubmed: 32778426
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):2163-2164
pubmed: 32283004
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Aug;26(8):1082-1087
pubmed: 32473953
Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 Oct 13;154(5):620-626
pubmed: 32814955
Sci Immunol. 2020 May 19;5(47):
pubmed: 32430309
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):262-267
pubmed: 32422057
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;20(7):758-759
pubmed: 32330441
JAMA. 2020 May 12;323(18):1843-1844
pubmed: 32159775
J Appl Lab Med. 2021 Mar 1;6(2):429-440
pubmed: 32976593
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 May 19;10(5):
pubmed: 32438677
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):425-429
pubmed: 32604404
Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Nov;510:73-78
pubmed: 32652161
Euro Surveill. 2020 Mar;25(10):
pubmed: 32183930