• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Clin Chem Lab Med . Evaluation of four commercial, fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests suggests a revision of the Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Chem Lab Med


. 2021 Jan 14;cclm-2020-1758.
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2020-1758. Online ahead of print.
Evaluation of four commercial, fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests suggests a revision of the Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay


Christian Irsara[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Alexander E Egger[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Wolfgang Prokop[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Manfred Nairz[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Lorin Loacker[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sabina Sahanic[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Alex Pizzini[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Thomas Sonnweber[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Wolfgang Mayer[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Harald Schennach[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Judith Loeffler-Ragg[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Rosa Bellmann-Weiler[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ivan Tancevski[SUP] 2 [/SUP], G?nter Weiss[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Markus Anliker[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Andrea Griesmacher[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Gregor Hoermann[SUP] 1 4 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Objectives: Serological tests detect antibodies against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the ongoing coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Independent external clinical validation of performance characteristics is of paramount importance.
Methods: Four fully automated assays, Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total (COV2T) and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (COV2G) were evaluated using 350 pre-pandemic samples and 700 samples from 245 COVID-19 patients (158 hospitalized, 87 outpatients).
Results: All tests showed very high diagnostic specificity. Sensitivities in samples collected at least 14 days after disease onset were slightly lower than manufacturers' claims for Roche (93.0%), Abbott (90.8%), and Siemens COV2T (90.3%), and distinctly lower for Siemens COV2G (78.8%). Concordantly negative results were enriched for immunocompromised patients. ROC curve analyses suggest a lowering of the cut-off index for the Siemens COV2G assay. Finally, the combination of two anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays is feasible when considering borderline reactive results.
Conclusions: Thorough on-site evaluation of commercially available serologic tests for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 remains imperative for laboratories. The potentially impaired sensitivity of the Siemens COV2G necessitates a switch to the company's newly filed SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay for follow-up studies. A combination of tests could be considered in clinical practice.

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2 antibody; orthogonal testing; sensitivity; serologic tests; specificity.
 
Back
Top Bottom