Loading…
Evaluation of Three Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays and Their Performance in Two-Test Algorithms
Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucl...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of clinical microbiology 2020-12, Vol.59 (1) |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a418t-b5547421c064d8ad41ded5d1e6f9fe0e8406aa60bfeb303bd58b557f8673cc0e3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a418t-b5547421c064d8ad41ded5d1e6f9fe0e8406aa60bfeb303bd58b557f8673cc0e3 |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Journal of clinical microbiology |
container_volume | 59 |
creator | Turbett, Sarah E Anahtar, Melis Dighe, Anand S Garcia Beltran, Wilfredo Miller, Tyler Scott, Hannah Durbin, Sienna Marie Bharadwaj, Maheetha Thomas, Jason Gogakos, Tasos S Astudillo, Michael Lennerz, Jochen Rosenberg, Eric S Branda, John A |
description | Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucleocapsid antibody tests (Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody) and one spike protein antibody test (DiaSorin IgG) were included. We assessed sensitivity using 128 serum samples from symptomatic PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and specificity using 1,204 samples submitted for routine serology prior to COVID-19's emergence, plus 64 pandemic-era samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Assays were evaluated as stand-alone tests and as components of a two-test algorithm in which positive results obtained using one assay were verified using a second assay. The two nucleocapsid antibody tests were more sensitive than the spike protein antibody test overall (70% and 70% versus 57%;
≤ 0.003), with pronounced differences observed using samples collected 7 to 14 days after symptom onset. All three assays were comparably sensitive (≥89%;
≥ 0.13) using samples collected >14 days after symptom onset. Specificity was higher using the nucleocapsid antibody tests (99.3% and 99.7%) than using the spike protein antibody test (97.8%;
≤ 0.002). When any two assays were paired in a two-test algorithm, the specificity was 99.9% (
|
doi_str_mv | 10.1128/JCM.01892-20 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7771444</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2448844549</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a418t-b5547421c064d8ad41ded5d1e6f9fe0e8406aa60bfeb303bd58b557f8673cc0e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1v1DAQxa0K1G4LN87IRyrVZew4iXNBWkX9ABWB2AVxsxxnsusqiVs7adX_voYtFRw4zWF-743mPULecDjlXKj3n-rPp8BVJZiAPbLgUClWFPDzBVkAVDnjPCsPyGGM1wBcyjzfJwdZBiJpigXZnN2ZfjaT8yP1HV1vAyKt_TBgsM70dLX8tmK1_8EEXWHwvd84S5cxmodIzdgmAbpAv2LofBjMaJG6ka7vPVtjnOiy3_jgpu0QX5GXnekjvn6aR-T7-dm6vmRXXy4-1ssrZiRXE2vyXJZScAuFbJVpJW-xzVuORVd1CKgkFMYU0HTYZJA1ba6SpOxUUWbWAmZH5MPO92ZuBmwtjlMwvb4JbjDhQXvj9L-b0W31xt_psixTOjIZvHsyCP52Tk_owUWLfW9G9HPUQkqlUoyySujJDrXBxxiwez7DQf_qRqdu9O9utICEH-9wEwehr_0cxpTE_9i3f7_xbPynuOwRFE2Xfg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2448844549</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of Three Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays and Their Performance in Two-Test Algorithms</title><source>American Society for Microbiology</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Turbett, Sarah E ; Anahtar, Melis ; Dighe, Anand S ; Garcia Beltran, Wilfredo ; Miller, Tyler ; Scott, Hannah ; Durbin, Sienna Marie ; Bharadwaj, Maheetha ; Thomas, Jason ; Gogakos, Tasos S ; Astudillo, Michael ; Lennerz, Jochen ; Rosenberg, Eric S ; Branda, John A</creator><contributor>Caliendo, Angela M ; Caliendo, Angela M.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Turbett, Sarah E ; Anahtar, Melis ; Dighe, Anand S ; Garcia Beltran, Wilfredo ; Miller, Tyler ; Scott, Hannah ; Durbin, Sienna Marie ; Bharadwaj, Maheetha ; Thomas, Jason ; Gogakos, Tasos S ; Astudillo, Michael ; Lennerz, Jochen ; Rosenberg, Eric S ; Branda, John A ; Caliendo, Angela M ; Caliendo, Angela M.</creatorcontrib><description>Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucleocapsid antibody tests (Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody) and one spike protein antibody test (DiaSorin IgG) were included. We assessed sensitivity using 128 serum samples from symptomatic PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and specificity using 1,204 samples submitted for routine serology prior to COVID-19's emergence, plus 64 pandemic-era samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Assays were evaluated as stand-alone tests and as components of a two-test algorithm in which positive results obtained using one assay were verified using a second assay. The two nucleocapsid antibody tests were more sensitive than the spike protein antibody test overall (70% and 70% versus 57%;
≤ 0.003), with pronounced differences observed using samples collected 7 to 14 days after symptom onset. All three assays were comparably sensitive (≥89%;
≥ 0.13) using samples collected >14 days after symptom onset. Specificity was higher using the nucleocapsid antibody tests (99.3% and 99.7%) than using the spike protein antibody test (97.8%;
≤ 0.002). When any two assays were paired in a two-test algorithm, the specificity was 99.9% (
< 0.0001 to 0.25 compared with the individual assays), and the positive predictive value (PPV) improved substantially, with a minimal effect on the negative predictive value (NPV). In conclusion, two nucleocapsid antibody tests outperformed a spike protein antibody test. Pairing two different serologic tests in a two-test algorithm improves the PPV, compared with the individual assays alone, while maintaining the NPV.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0095-1137</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1098-660X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1098-660X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01892-20</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33020186</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society for Microbiology</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Antibodies, Viral - blood ; Clinical Laboratory Techniques - methods ; Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins - immunology ; COVID-19 ; COVID-19 - diagnosis ; COVID-19 Serological Testing - methods ; Humans ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus - immunology ; Virology</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical microbiology, 2020-12, Vol.59 (1)</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology. 2020 American Society for Microbiology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a418t-b5547421c064d8ad41ded5d1e6f9fe0e8406aa60bfeb303bd58b557f8673cc0e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a418t-b5547421c064d8ad41ded5d1e6f9fe0e8406aa60bfeb303bd58b557f8673cc0e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3603-8110 ; 0000-0003-0309-368X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/JCM.01892-20$$EPDF$$P50$$Gasm2$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/JCM.01892-20$$EHTML$$P50$$Gasm2$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,3188,27924,27925,52751,52752,52753,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33020186$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Caliendo, Angela M</contributor><contributor>Caliendo, Angela M.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Turbett, Sarah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anahtar, Melis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dighe, Anand S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia Beltran, Wilfredo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Tyler</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durbin, Sienna Marie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bharadwaj, Maheetha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gogakos, Tasos S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Astudillo, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lennerz, Jochen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenberg, Eric S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Branda, John A</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of Three Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays and Their Performance in Two-Test Algorithms</title><title>Journal of clinical microbiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Microbiol</addtitle><addtitle>J Clin Microbiol</addtitle><description>Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucleocapsid antibody tests (Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody) and one spike protein antibody test (DiaSorin IgG) were included. We assessed sensitivity using 128 serum samples from symptomatic PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and specificity using 1,204 samples submitted for routine serology prior to COVID-19's emergence, plus 64 pandemic-era samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Assays were evaluated as stand-alone tests and as components of a two-test algorithm in which positive results obtained using one assay were verified using a second assay. The two nucleocapsid antibody tests were more sensitive than the spike protein antibody test overall (70% and 70% versus 57%;
≤ 0.003), with pronounced differences observed using samples collected 7 to 14 days after symptom onset. All three assays were comparably sensitive (≥89%;
≥ 0.13) using samples collected >14 days after symptom onset. Specificity was higher using the nucleocapsid antibody tests (99.3% and 99.7%) than using the spike protein antibody test (97.8%;
≤ 0.002). When any two assays were paired in a two-test algorithm, the specificity was 99.9% (
< 0.0001 to 0.25 compared with the individual assays), and the positive predictive value (PPV) improved substantially, with a minimal effect on the negative predictive value (NPV). In conclusion, two nucleocapsid antibody tests outperformed a spike protein antibody test. Pairing two different serologic tests in a two-test algorithm improves the PPV, compared with the individual assays alone, while maintaining the NPV.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Antibodies, Viral - blood</subject><subject>Clinical Laboratory Techniques - methods</subject><subject>Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins - immunology</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>COVID-19 - diagnosis</subject><subject>COVID-19 Serological Testing - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>SARS-CoV-2</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus - immunology</subject><subject>Virology</subject><issn>0095-1137</issn><issn>1098-660X</issn><issn>1098-660X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1v1DAQxa0K1G4LN87IRyrVZew4iXNBWkX9ABWB2AVxsxxnsusqiVs7adX_voYtFRw4zWF-743mPULecDjlXKj3n-rPp8BVJZiAPbLgUClWFPDzBVkAVDnjPCsPyGGM1wBcyjzfJwdZBiJpigXZnN2ZfjaT8yP1HV1vAyKt_TBgsM70dLX8tmK1_8EEXWHwvd84S5cxmodIzdgmAbpAv2LofBjMaJG6ka7vPVtjnOiy3_jgpu0QX5GXnekjvn6aR-T7-dm6vmRXXy4-1ssrZiRXE2vyXJZScAuFbJVpJW-xzVuORVd1CKgkFMYU0HTYZJA1ba6SpOxUUWbWAmZH5MPO92ZuBmwtjlMwvb4JbjDhQXvj9L-b0W31xt_psixTOjIZvHsyCP52Tk_owUWLfW9G9HPUQkqlUoyySujJDrXBxxiwez7DQf_qRqdu9O9utICEH-9wEwehr_0cxpTE_9i3f7_xbPynuOwRFE2Xfg</recordid><startdate>20201217</startdate><enddate>20201217</enddate><creator>Turbett, Sarah E</creator><creator>Anahtar, Melis</creator><creator>Dighe, Anand S</creator><creator>Garcia Beltran, Wilfredo</creator><creator>Miller, Tyler</creator><creator>Scott, Hannah</creator><creator>Durbin, Sienna Marie</creator><creator>Bharadwaj, Maheetha</creator><creator>Thomas, Jason</creator><creator>Gogakos, Tasos S</creator><creator>Astudillo, Michael</creator><creator>Lennerz, Jochen</creator><creator>Rosenberg, Eric S</creator><creator>Branda, John A</creator><general>American Society for Microbiology</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3603-8110</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0309-368X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201217</creationdate><title>Evaluation of Three Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays and Their Performance in Two-Test Algorithms</title><author>Turbett, Sarah E ; Anahtar, Melis ; Dighe, Anand S ; Garcia Beltran, Wilfredo ; Miller, Tyler ; Scott, Hannah ; Durbin, Sienna Marie ; Bharadwaj, Maheetha ; Thomas, Jason ; Gogakos, Tasos S ; Astudillo, Michael ; Lennerz, Jochen ; Rosenberg, Eric S ; Branda, John A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a418t-b5547421c064d8ad41ded5d1e6f9fe0e8406aa60bfeb303bd58b557f8673cc0e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Antibodies, Viral - blood</topic><topic>Clinical Laboratory Techniques - methods</topic><topic>Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins - immunology</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>COVID-19 - diagnosis</topic><topic>COVID-19 Serological Testing - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>SARS-CoV-2</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus - immunology</topic><topic>Virology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Turbett, Sarah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anahtar, Melis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dighe, Anand S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia Beltran, Wilfredo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Tyler</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durbin, Sienna Marie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bharadwaj, Maheetha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gogakos, Tasos S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Astudillo, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lennerz, Jochen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenberg, Eric S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Branda, John A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical microbiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Turbett, Sarah E</au><au>Anahtar, Melis</au><au>Dighe, Anand S</au><au>Garcia Beltran, Wilfredo</au><au>Miller, Tyler</au><au>Scott, Hannah</au><au>Durbin, Sienna Marie</au><au>Bharadwaj, Maheetha</au><au>Thomas, Jason</au><au>Gogakos, Tasos S</au><au>Astudillo, Michael</au><au>Lennerz, Jochen</au><au>Rosenberg, Eric S</au><au>Branda, John A</au><au>Caliendo, Angela M</au><au>Caliendo, Angela M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of Three Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays and Their Performance in Two-Test Algorithms</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical microbiology</jtitle><stitle>J Clin Microbiol</stitle><addtitle>J Clin Microbiol</addtitle><date>2020-12-17</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>59</volume><issue>1</issue><issn>0095-1137</issn><issn>1098-660X</issn><eissn>1098-660X</eissn><abstract>Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucleocapsid antibody tests (Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody) and one spike protein antibody test (DiaSorin IgG) were included. We assessed sensitivity using 128 serum samples from symptomatic PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and specificity using 1,204 samples submitted for routine serology prior to COVID-19's emergence, plus 64 pandemic-era samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Assays were evaluated as stand-alone tests and as components of a two-test algorithm in which positive results obtained using one assay were verified using a second assay. The two nucleocapsid antibody tests were more sensitive than the spike protein antibody test overall (70% and 70% versus 57%;
≤ 0.003), with pronounced differences observed using samples collected 7 to 14 days after symptom onset. All three assays were comparably sensitive (≥89%;
≥ 0.13) using samples collected >14 days after symptom onset. Specificity was higher using the nucleocapsid antibody tests (99.3% and 99.7%) than using the spike protein antibody test (97.8%;
≤ 0.002). When any two assays were paired in a two-test algorithm, the specificity was 99.9% (
< 0.0001 to 0.25 compared with the individual assays), and the positive predictive value (PPV) improved substantially, with a minimal effect on the negative predictive value (NPV). In conclusion, two nucleocapsid antibody tests outperformed a spike protein antibody test. Pairing two different serologic tests in a two-test algorithm improves the PPV, compared with the individual assays alone, while maintaining the NPV.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society for Microbiology</pub><pmid>33020186</pmid><doi>10.1128/JCM.01892-20</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3603-8110</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0309-368X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0095-1137 |
ispartof | Journal of clinical microbiology, 2020-12, Vol.59 (1) |
issn | 0095-1137 1098-660X 1098-660X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7771444 |
source | American Society for Microbiology; PubMed Central |
subjects | Algorithms Antibodies, Viral - blood Clinical Laboratory Techniques - methods Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins - immunology COVID-19 COVID-19 - diagnosis COVID-19 Serological Testing - methods Humans SARS-CoV-2 Sensitivity and Specificity Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus - immunology Virology |
title | Evaluation of Three Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays and Their Performance in Two-Test Algorithms |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T10%3A13%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20Three%20Commercial%20SARS-CoV-2%20Serologic%20Assays%20and%20Their%20Performance%20in%20Two-Test%20Algorithms&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20microbiology&rft.au=Turbett,%20Sarah%20E&rft.date=2020-12-17&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=1&rft.issn=0095-1137&rft.eissn=1098-660X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1128/JCM.01892-20&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2448844549%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a418t-b5547421c064d8ad41ded5d1e6f9fe0e8406aa60bfeb303bd58b557f8673cc0e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2448844549&rft_id=info:pmid/33020186&rfr_iscdi=true |