tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
mSphere
. 2022 Sep 29;e0025722.
doi: 10.1128/msphere.00257-22. Online ahead of print.
Concordance of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Results during a Period of Low Prevalence
Cheryl N Miller[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Keri N Althoff[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 2 [/SUP], David J Schlueter[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Hoda Anton-Culver[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Qingxia Chen[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Shawn Garbett[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Francis Ratsimbazafy[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Isaac Thomsen[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Elizabeth W Karlson[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Mine Cicek[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Ligia A Pinto[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bradley A Malin[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Lucila Ohno-Machado[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Carolyn Williams[SUP] 10 [/SUP], David Goldstein[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Aymone Kouame[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Andrea Ramirez[SUP] 12 [/SUP], Kelly A Gebo[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 13 [/SUP], Sheri D Schully[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 12 [/SUP], All of Us Research Program
Affiliations
Abstract
Accurate, highly specific immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to evaluate seroprevalence. This study investigated the concordance of results across four immunoassays targeting different antigens for sera collected at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United States. Specimens from All of Us participants contributed between January and March 2020 were tested using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (immunoglobulin G) assay (Abbott) and the EuroImmun SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EI). Participants with discordant results, participants with concordant positive results, and a subset of concordant negative results by Abbott and EI were also tested using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG) test (Roche) and the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test (Ortho). The agreement and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for paired assay combinations. SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were quantified for specimens with at least two positive results across four immunoassays. Among the 24,079 participants, the percent agreement for the Abbott and EI assays was 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7%, 99%). Of the 490 participants who were also tested by Ortho and Roche, the probability-weighted percentage of agreement (95% confidence interval) between Ortho and Roche was 98.4% (97.9%, 98.9%), that between EI and Ortho was 98.5% (92.9%, 99.9%), that between Abbott and Roche was 98.9% (90.3%, 100.0%), that between EI and Roche was 98.9% (98.6%, 100.0%), and that between Abbott and Ortho was 98.4% (91.2%, 100.0%). Among the 32 participants who were positive by at least 2 immunoassays, 21 had quantifiable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by research assays. The results across immunoassays revealed concordance during a period of low prevalence. However, the frequency of false positivity during a period of low prevalence supports the use of two sequentially performed tests for unvaccinated individuals who are seropositive by the first test. IMPORTANCE What is the agreement of commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays during a time of low coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence and no vaccine availability? Serological tests produced concordant results in a time of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and no vaccine availability, driven largely by the proportion of samples that were negative by two immunoassays. The CDC recommends two sequential tests for positivity for future pandemic preparedness. In a subset analysis, quantified antinucleocapsid and antispike SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies do not suggest the need to specify the antigen targets of the sequential assays in the CDC's recommendation because false positivity varied as much between assays targeting the same antigen as it did between assays targeting different antigens.
Keywords: IgG antibodies; SARS-CoV-2; low prevalence; nucleocapsid protein; spike protein.
. 2022 Sep 29;e0025722.
doi: 10.1128/msphere.00257-22. Online ahead of print.
Concordance of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Results during a Period of Low Prevalence
Cheryl N Miller[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], Keri N Althoff[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 2 [/SUP], David J Schlueter[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Hoda Anton-Culver[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Qingxia Chen[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Shawn Garbett[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Francis Ratsimbazafy[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Isaac Thomsen[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Elizabeth W Karlson[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Mine Cicek[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Ligia A Pinto[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bradley A Malin[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Lucila Ohno-Machado[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Carolyn Williams[SUP] 10 [/SUP], David Goldstein[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Aymone Kouame[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Andrea Ramirez[SUP] 12 [/SUP], Kelly A Gebo[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 13 [/SUP], Sheri D Schully[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 12 [/SUP], All of Us Research Program
Affiliations
- PMID: 36173112
- DOI: 10.1128/msphere.00257-22
Abstract
Accurate, highly specific immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to evaluate seroprevalence. This study investigated the concordance of results across four immunoassays targeting different antigens for sera collected at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United States. Specimens from All of Us participants contributed between January and March 2020 were tested using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (immunoglobulin G) assay (Abbott) and the EuroImmun SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EI). Participants with discordant results, participants with concordant positive results, and a subset of concordant negative results by Abbott and EI were also tested using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG) test (Roche) and the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test (Ortho). The agreement and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for paired assay combinations. SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were quantified for specimens with at least two positive results across four immunoassays. Among the 24,079 participants, the percent agreement for the Abbott and EI assays was 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7%, 99%). Of the 490 participants who were also tested by Ortho and Roche, the probability-weighted percentage of agreement (95% confidence interval) between Ortho and Roche was 98.4% (97.9%, 98.9%), that between EI and Ortho was 98.5% (92.9%, 99.9%), that between Abbott and Roche was 98.9% (90.3%, 100.0%), that between EI and Roche was 98.9% (98.6%, 100.0%), and that between Abbott and Ortho was 98.4% (91.2%, 100.0%). Among the 32 participants who were positive by at least 2 immunoassays, 21 had quantifiable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by research assays. The results across immunoassays revealed concordance during a period of low prevalence. However, the frequency of false positivity during a period of low prevalence supports the use of two sequentially performed tests for unvaccinated individuals who are seropositive by the first test. IMPORTANCE What is the agreement of commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays during a time of low coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence and no vaccine availability? Serological tests produced concordant results in a time of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and no vaccine availability, driven largely by the proportion of samples that were negative by two immunoassays. The CDC recommends two sequential tests for positivity for future pandemic preparedness. In a subset analysis, quantified antinucleocapsid and antispike SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies do not suggest the need to specify the antigen targets of the sequential assays in the CDC's recommendation because false positivity varied as much between assays targeting the same antigen as it did between assays targeting different antigens.
Keywords: IgG antibodies; SARS-CoV-2; low prevalence; nucleocapsid protein; spike protein.