Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2021 Jun 4;11(1):11837.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91235-x.

Analytic comparison between three high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays reveals minor discrepancies in a high-incidence population

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Analytic comparison between three high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays reveals minor discrepancies in a high-incidence population

Gheyath K Nasrallah et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Performance of three automated commercial serological IgG-based assays was investigated for assessing SARS-CoV-2 "ever" (past or current) infection in a population-based sample in a high exposure setting. PCR and serological testing was performed on 394 individuals. SARS-CoV-2-IgG seroprevalence was 42.9% (95% CI 38.1-47.8%), 40.6% (95% CI 35.9-45.5%), and 42.4% (95% CI 37.6-47.3%) using the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. Between the three assays, overall, positive, and negative percent agreements ranged between 93.2-95.7%, 89.3-92.8%, and 93.8-97.8%, respectively; Cohen's kappa statistic ranged from 0.86 to 0.91; and 35 specimens (8.9%) showed discordant results. Among all individuals, 12.5% (95% CI 9.6-16.1%) had current infection, as assessed by PCR. Of these, only 34.7% (95% CI 22.9-48.7%) were seropositive by at least one assay. A total of 216 individuals (54.8%; 95% CI 49.9-59.7%) had evidence of ever infection using antibody testing and/or PCR during or prior to this study. Of these, only 78.2%, 74.1%, and 77.3% were seropositive in the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. All three assays had comparable performance and excellent agreement, but missed at least 20% of individuals with past or current infection. Commercial antibody assays can substantially underestimate ever infection, more so when infection rates are high.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycle threshold (Ct) values of (A) the 49 persons identified as SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive at the time of specimen collection during the study, (B) the 17 persons identified as SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive, but were antibody-positive in at least one of the assays, and (C) the 32 persons identified as SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive, but were antibody-negative in all three assays.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of the optical density values in those seronegative versus those seropositive for each assay. Red line indicates the manufacturer’s cut-off values. Blue line indicates the empirically determined optical density cut-off values as informed by the literature,.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. The World Health Organization . WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. WHO; 2020.
    1. Abu-Raddad LJ, et al. Characterizing the Qatar advanced-phase SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. MedRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.07.16.20155317. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ayoub HH, et al. Mathematical modeling of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Qatar and its impact on the national response to COVID-19. MedRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.11.08.20184663. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Al Kuwari HM, et al. Epidemiological investigation of the first 5685 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Qatar, 28 February–18 April 2020. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e040428. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040428. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. The Roche Group. Roche’s COVID-19 antibody test receives FDA Emergency Use Authorization and is Available in Markets Accepting the CE Mark (2020). https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm (Accessed 5 June 2020).

Publication types