Head to head comparison of five assays used to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies shows Siemens and Oxford assays met regulatory targets

September 23, 2020

New research being presented at the ESCMID Conference on Coronavirus Disease (ECCVID, online 23-25 September) shows that, in a head-to-head comparison of five tests used to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (known as 'immunoassays'), an assay manufactured by Siemens and one developed by an academic partnership led by the University of Oxford had the most accurate results. The study is published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, as part of a special ECCVID session featuring The Lancet journals.

Testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be of benefit to understanding how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and how people respond to vaccines that are being evaluated in research studies. The presence of antibodies may also correlate with protective immunity from SARS-CoV-2 re-infection, although this remains to be clearly demonstrated.

Several manufacturers have developed SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays compatible with global laboratory infrastructures, enabling widespread testing of hundreds to thousands of samples per day. Understanding the performance of these tests is highly relevant to optimising their usage. The scale-up required for regular population-wide testing (e.g., every few weeks or months) might exceed the capacity of currently available commercial platforms, and additional, accurate, high-throughput tests would be of value.

To date, few thorough, direct assessments of immunoassay performance on large sample sets have been done, and governments, regulators, and clinical laboratories have had to balance the urgent need to facilitate the demand for serological testing with the few data available on assay performance. This has led to a relaxation of typical assessment criteria in the regulation and approval of tests on the market.

This study, carried out by The National SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assay Evaluation Group, a team of researchers and scientists collaborating across several UK institutions including Public Health England (Porton Down), involved a head-to-head assessment of four widely available commercial assays: the SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), SARS-CoV-2 Total assay (Siemens, Munich, Germany); and a novel 384-well assay (the Oxford immunoassay). The study calculated the sensitivity (the ability of a test to correctly identify those with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies or 'true positive' rate) and the specificity (the ability of the test to correctly identify those without SARS-CoV-2 antibodies or 'true negative' rate).

Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by testing 976 pre-pandemic blood samples (collected several years before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic started, and therefore known to be negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies) and 536 blood samples from patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (by RT-PCR), collected at least 20-days post symptom onset. This was in line with the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) guidance on how these tests should be evaluated.

Using the tests exactly as specified by the manufacturers, the best results were delivered by the Siemens assay (sensitivity 98·1% / specificity 99·9%) and the Oxford immunoassay (sensitivity 99·1% / specificity 99·0%). For the Abbott assay sensitivity was 92·7% and specificity was 99·9%; for the DiaSorin assay sensitivity was 95·0% and specificity was 98·7%; for the Roche assay sensitivity was 97·2% and specificity was 99·8%. The researchers also found that changing the assay thresholds (i.e. the test value distinguishing between a 'positive' and a 'negative' test result) and using them on samples taken 30 days or more post-symptom onset (i.e. allowing more time for antibody responses to develop in affected individuals) could result in improved test performance.

"By running all the assays on the same large panel of blood samples, we showed that the Siemens assay and the Oxford immunoassay both achieved sensitivity and specificity of at least 98% on samples taken at least 20 days post symptom onset, in line with the current MHRA guidance for the regulatory approval of these tests.

However, all assays could potentially achieve these specifications through threshold adjustment, or by assessing samples collected at least 30 days post symptom onset, consistent with the time-dependent nature of antibody responses," explain the authors, who include Dr Nicole Stoesser, a clinician-scientist from the Nuffield Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford, UK.

She adds: "There is no such thing as a 'perfect test', but accurately evaluating how these tests perform can help us understand their limitations and improve how they are used. Importantly, consideration needs to be given to how many false-positive and false-negative results might occur with any given test; this depends on both the test performance, and how many people in the population being tested genuinely have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Overall however, our study supports the fact that global serology testing needs can be met using different assays, mitigating against the risk of shortages, and allowing deployment in laboratories with different analysers already installed for other testing purposes."*

However, she cautions: "Although all these assays can effectively detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, the nature and durability of any immunity conferred by these antibodies remain unclear."

She concludes: "This study represents a benchmark for future assessments of serological tests. New tests should be similarly rigorously evaluated. Such assays will be an important part of the clinical and research landscape in guiding public health policy, with effects to be delivered at the individual level and population level."
-end-
The study was supported by Public Health England and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

Related Antibodies Articles from Brightsurf:

Scientist develops new way to test for COVID-19 antibodies
New research details how a cell-free test rapidly detects COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies and could aid in vaccine testing and drug discovery efforts.

Mussels connect antibodies to treat cancer
POSTECH research team develops innovative local anticancer immunotherapy technology using mussel protein.

For an effective COVID vaccine, look beyond antibodies to T-cells
Most vaccine developers are aiming solely for a robust antibody response against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, despite evidence that antibodies are not the body's primary protective response to infection by coronaviruses, says Marc Hellerstein of UC Berkeley.

Children can have COVID-19 antibodies and virus in their system simultaneously
With many questions remaining around how children spread COVID-19, Children's National Hospital researchers set out to improve the understanding of how long it takes pediatric patients with the virus to clear it from their systems, and at what point they start to make antibodies that work against the coronavirus.

The behavior of therapeutic antibodies in immunotherapy
Since the late 1990s, immunotherapy has been the frontline treatment against lymphomas where synthetic antibodies are used to stop the proliferation of cancerous white blood cells.

Re-engineering antibodies for COVID-19
Catholic University of America researcher uses 'in silico' analysis to fast-track passive immunity

Seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in 10 US sites
This study estimates how common SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are in convenience samples from 10 geographic sites in the United States.

Neutralizing antibodies in the battle against COVID-19
An important line of defense against SARS-CoV-2 is the formation of neutralizing antibodies.

Three new studies identify neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2
A trio of papers describes several newly discovered human antibodies that target the SARS-CoV-2 virus, isolated from survivors of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV infection.

More effective human antibodies possible with chicken cells
Antibodies for potential use as medicines can be made rapidly in chicken cells grown in laboratories.

Read More: Antibodies News and Antibodies Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.