Characteristics of Three Different Chemiluminescence Assays for Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.

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 multigroup 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 the 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.

Temporal Course of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Positivity in Patients with COVID-19 following the First Clinical Presentation.

Knowledge of the sensitivities of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests beyond 35 days after the clinical onset of COVID-19 is insufficient. We aimed to describe positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 assays employing three different measurement principles over a prolonged period. Two hundred sixty-eight samples from 180 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test followed by serological investigation of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were included. We conducted three chemiluminescence (including electrochemiluminescence assay (ECLIA)), four enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and one lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test formats. Positivity rates, as well as positive (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs), were calculated for each week after the first clinical presentation for COVID-19. Furthermore, combinations of tests were assessed within an orthogonal testing approach employing two independent assays and predictive values were calculated. Heat maps were constructed to graphically illustrate operational test characteristics. During a follow-up period of more than 9 weeks, chemiluminescence assays and one ELISA IgG test showed stable positivity rates after the third week. With the exception of ECLIA, the PPVs of the other chemiluminescence assays were ≥95% for COVID-19 only after the second week. ELISA and LFIA had somewhat lower PPVs. IgM exhibited insufficient predictive characteristics. An orthogonal testing approach provided PPVs ≥ 95% for patients with a moderate pretest probability (e.g., symptomatic patients), even for tests with a low single test performance. After the second week, NPVs of all but IgM assays were ≥95% for patients with low to moderate pretest probability. The confirmation of negative results using an orthogonal algorithm with another assay provided lower NPVs than the single assays. When interpreting results from SARS-CoV-2 tests, the pretest probability, time of blood draw, and assay characteristics must be carefully considered. An orthogonal testing approach increases the accuracy of positive, but not negative, predictions.

EDTA-Anticoagulated Whole Blood for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing by Electrochemiluminescence Immunoassay (ECLIA) and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA).

While lateral flow test formats can be utilized with whole blood and low sample volumes, their diagnostic characteristics are inferior to immunoassays based on chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technology. CLIAs and ELISAs can be automated to a high degree but commonly require larger serum or plasma volumes for sample processing. We addressed the suitability of EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood as an alternative sample material for antibody testing against SARS-CoV-2 by electro-CLIA (ECLIA; Roche, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) and ELISA (IgG and IgA; Euroimmun, Germany). Simultaneously drawn venous serum and EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood samples from 223 individuals were included. Correction of the whole blood results for hematocrit led to a good agreement with the serum results for weakly to moderately positive antibody signals. In receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, all three assays displayed comparable diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve (AUC)) using corrected whole blood and serum (AUCs: 0.97 for ECLIA and IgG ELISA; 0.84 for IgA ELISA). In conclusion, our results suggest that the investigated assays can reliably detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in hemolyzed whole blood anticoagulated with EDTA. Correction of these results for hematocrit is suggested. This study demonstrates that the automated processing of whole blood for identification of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with common ECLIA and ELISA methods is accurate and feasible.