Head-to-Head Evaluation of Five Automated SARS-CoV-2 Serology Immunoassays in Various Prevalence Settings.
COVID-19
Diasorin
Epitope
Euroimmun
Roche
SARS-CoV-2
anti-N
anti-S
electrochemiluminescent immunoassay (ECLIA)
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
serology
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Apr 2021
10 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
25
02
2021
revised:
30
03
2021
accepted:
04
04
2021
entrez:
30
4
2021
pubmed:
1
5
2021
medline:
1
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess the diagnostic performances of five automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, Epitope (N), Diasorin (S1/S2), Euroimmun (S1), Roche N (N), and Roche S (S-RBD), and to provide a testing strategy based on pre-test probability. We assessed the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) areas under the curve (AUC) values, along with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs), of each assay using a validation sample set of 172 COVID-19 sera and 185 negative controls against a validated S1-immunofluorescence as a reference method. The three assays displaying the highest AUCs were selected for further serodetection of 2033 sera of a large population-based cohort. In the validation analysis (pre-test probability: 48.1%), Roche N, Roche S and Euroimmun showed the highest discriminant accuracy (AUCs: 0.99, 0.98, and 0.98) with PPVs and NPVs above 96% and 94%, respectively. In the population-based cohort (pre-test probability: 6.2%) these three assays displayed AUCs above 0.97 and PPVs and NPVs above 90.5% and 99.4%, respectively. A sequential strategy using an anti-S assay as screening test and an anti-N as confirmatory assays resulted in a 96.7% PPV and 99.5% NPV, respectively. Euroimmun and both Roche assays performed equally well in high pre-test probability settings. At a lower prevalence, sequentially combining anti-S and anti-N assays resulted in the optimal trade-off between diagnostic performances and operational considerations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33920076
pii: jcm10081605
doi: 10.3390/jcm10081605
pmc: PMC8069412
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Dec;29:100651
pubmed: 33235985
J Clin Virol. 2021 Jan;134:104690
pubmed: 33253926
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Oct;26(10):1386-1394
pubmed: 32603801
Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2020 Oct;27(10):934-941
pubmed: 32737467
Virus Res. 2014 Dec 19;194:175-83
pubmed: 24670324
Science. 2021 Jan 15;371(6526):288-292
pubmed: 33293339
Ann Epidemiol. 2020 Sep;49:50-60
pubmed: 32791199
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Lancet. 2020 Aug 22;396(10250):535-544
pubmed: 32645347
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2027-2034
pubmed: 32221519
J Virol Methods. 2021 Jan;287:113978
pubmed: 32979407
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Nov;26(11):1557.e1-1557.e7
pubmed: 32745595
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32513859
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
Virol Sin. 2020 Dec;35(6):758-767
pubmed: 32749593
Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 May;15(5):559-64
pubmed: 25863564
Lancet. 2020 Aug 1;396(10247):313-319
pubmed: 32534626
Nat Med. 2020 Jun;26(6):845-848
pubmed: 32350462
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;20(12):1390-1400
pubmed: 32979318
GMS Infect Dis. 2020 Sep 16;8:Doc22
pubmed: 32983837
Ann Epidemiol. 2020 Aug;48:23-29.e4
pubmed: 32648546
Am J Clin Pathol. 2021 Feb 4;155(2):267-279
pubmed: 33033840
J Virol. 2021 Jan 13;95(3):
pubmed: 33144321
JCI Insight. 2020 Sep 17;5(18):
pubmed: 32796155
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 May;21(5):e120
pubmed: 33137289
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):262-267
pubmed: 32422057
J Clin Med. 2020 Jul 24;9(8):
pubmed: 32722191
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 May;21(5):600-601
pubmed: 33539733
Euro Surveill. 2012 Dec 06;17(49):
pubmed: 23231891