High-throughput immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 – considerable differences in performance when comparing three methods
2020; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; Linguagem: Inglês
10.1101/2020.05.22.20106294
AutoresOskar Ekelund, Kim Ekblom, Sofia Somajo, Johanna Pattison-Granberg, K. Olsson, Annika Petersson,
Tópico(s)Biosensors and Analytical Detection
ResumoAbstract Background The recently launched high-throughput assays for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 may change the managing strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed at investigating the performance of three high-throughput assays and one rapid lateral flow test relative to the recommended criteria defined by regulatory authorities. Methods A total of 133 samples, including 100 pre-pandemic samples, 20 samples from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive individuals, and 13 potentially cross-reactive samples were analysed with SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (DiaSorin) and 2019-nCOV IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Dynamiker Biotechnology Co). Results All assays performed with a high level of specificity; however, only Abbott reached 100% (95% CI 96.3-100). The pre-pandemic samples analysed with Roche, DiaSorin and Dynamiker Biotechnology resulted in two to three false-positive results per method (specificity 96.9-98.0%). Sensitivity differed more between the assays, Roche exhibiting the highest sensitivity (100%, CI 83.9-100). The corresponding figures for Abbott, DiaSorin and Dynamiker Biotechnology were 85.0%, 77.8% and 75.0%, respectively. Conclusions The results of the evaluated SARS-CoV-2 assays vary considerably as well as their ability to fulfil the performance criteria proposed by regulatory authorities. Introduction into clinical use in low-prevalent settings, should therefore, be made with caution.
Referência(s)