Characteristics of three different chemiluminescence assays for testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies
Myriam C. Weber,
Sarah L. Thiel,
Christian R Kahlert
Posted 06 Nov 2020
medRxiv DOI: 10.1101/2020.11.05.20225003
Posted 06 Nov 2020
Several tests based on chemiluminescence immunoassay techniques have become available to test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. There is currently insufficient data on serology assay performance beyond 35 days after symptoms onset. We aimed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests on three widely used platforms. A chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA; Abbott Diagnostics, USA), a luminescence immunoassay (LIA; Diasorin, Italy), and an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA; Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland) were investigated. In a multi-group study, sensitivity was assessed in a group of participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (n=145), whereas specificity was determined in two groups of participants without evidence of COVID-19 (i.e. healthy blood donors, n=191, and healthcare workers, n=1002). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, multilevel likelihood ratios (LR), and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were characterized. Finally, analytical specificity was characterized in samples with evidence of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) (n=9), cytomegalovirus (CMV) (n=7) and endemic common cold coronavirus infections (n=12) taken prior to the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The diagnostic accuracy was comparable in all three assays (AUC 0.98). Using the manufacturers cut-offs, the sensitivities were 90%, 95% confidence interval,[84,94] (LIA), 93% [88,96] (CMIA), and 96% [91,98] (ECLIA). The specificities were 99.5% [98.9,99.8](CMIA) 99.7% [99.3,99,9] (LIA) and 99.9% [99.5,99.98] (ECLIA). The LR at half of the manufacturers cut-offs were 60 (CMIA), 82 (LIA), and 575 (ECLIA) for positive and 0.043 (CMIA) and 0.035 (LIA, ECLIA) for negative results. ECLIA had higher PPV at low pretest probabilities than CMIA and LIA. No interference with EBV or CMV infection was observed, whereas endemic coronavirus in some cases provided signals in LIA and/or CMIA. Although the diagnostic accuracy of the three investigated assays is comparable, their performance in low-prevalence settings is different. Introducing gray zones at half of the manufacturers cut-offs is suggested, especially for orthogonal testing approaches that use a second assay for confirmation.
- Downloaded 187 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 104,564
- In infectious diseases: 3,654
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 65,882
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 35,205
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!