Elena Riester1, Mario Majchrzak2, Annelies Mühlbacher3, Caroline Tinguely4, Peter Findeisen5, Johannes Kolja Hegel6, Michael Laimighofer7, Christopher M Rank7, Kathrin Schönfeld7, Florina Langen7, Tina Laengin7, Christoph Niederhauser4,8. 1. Labor Augsburg MVZ GmbH, Augsburg, Germany. 2. German Red Cross Blood Service West GmbH, Central Laboratory Hagen, Hagen, Germany. 3. Central Institute of Blood Transfusion and Immunology (ZIB), University Hospital LKH, Innsbruck, Austria. 4. Interregionale Blood Transfusion Swiss Red Cross, Bern, Switzerland. 5. MVZ Labor Limbach, Im Breitspiel 16, 69126, Heidelberg, Germany. peter.findeisen@labor-limbach.de. 6. Labor Berlin, Charité Vivantes Services GmbH, Berlin, Germany. 7. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Penzberg, Germany. 8. Institute for Infectious Diseases (IFIK), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We performed a multicentre evaluation of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics), an assay utilising a recombinant protein representing the nucleocapsid (N) antigen, for the in vitro qualitative detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: Specificity was evaluated using serum/plasma samples from blood donors and routine diagnostic specimens collected before September 2019 (i.e., presumed negative for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies); sensitivity was evaluated using samples from patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Method comparison was performed versus commercially available assays. RESULTS: Overall specificity for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (n = 9575) was 99.85% (95% CI 99.75-99.92): blood donors (n = 6714; 99.82%), routine diagnostic specimens (n = 2861; 99.93%), pregnant women (n = 2256; 99.91%), paediatric samples (n = 205; 100.00%). The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated significantly higher specificity versus LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (99.71% vs. 98.48%), EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 94.87%), ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (100.00% vs. 87.32%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM (100.00% vs. 99.58%) assays, and comparable specificity to ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (99.75% vs. 99.65%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 100.00%) assays. Overall sensitivity for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay samples drawn at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation (n = 219) was 93.61% (95% CI 89.51-96.46). No statistically significant differences in sensitivity were observed between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay versus EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (90.32% vs. 95.16%) and ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (84.81% vs. 87.34%) assays. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay showed significantly lower sensitivity versus ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (85.19% vs. 95.06%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (86.25% vs. 93.75%) assays, but significantly higher sensitivity versus the iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay (86.25% vs. 33.75%). CONCLUSION: The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated very high specificity and high sensitivity in samples collected at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting its use to aid in determination of previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
INTRODUCTION: We performed a multicentre evaluation of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics), an assay utilising a recombinant protein representing the nucleocapsid (N) antigen, for the in vitro qualitative detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: Specificity was evaluated using serum/plasma samples from blood donors and routine diagnostic specimens collected before September 2019 (i.e., presumed negative for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies); sensitivity was evaluated using samples frompatients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Method comparison was performed versus commercially available assays. RESULTS: Overall specificity for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (n = 9575) was 99.85% (95% CI 99.75-99.92): blood donors (n = 6714; 99.82%), routine diagnostic specimens (n = 2861; 99.93%), pregnant women (n = 2256; 99.91%), paediatric samples (n = 205; 100.00%). The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated significantly higher specificity versus LIAISONSARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (99.71% vs. 98.48%), EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 94.87%), ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (100.00% vs. 87.32%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM (100.00% vs. 99.58%) assays, and comparable specificity to ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (99.75% vs. 99.65%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 100.00%) assays. Overall sensitivity for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay samples drawn at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation (n = 219) was 93.61% (95% CI 89.51-96.46). No statistically significant differences in sensitivity were observed between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay versus EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (90.32% vs. 95.16%) and ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (84.81% vs. 87.34%) assays. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay showed significantly lower sensitivity versus ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (85.19% vs. 95.06%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (86.25% vs. 93.75%) assays, but significantly higher sensitivity versus the iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay (86.25% vs. 33.75%). CONCLUSION: The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated very high specificity and high sensitivity in samples collected at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting its use to aid in determination of previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
Authors: He S Yang; Sabrina E Racine-Brzostek; Mohsen Karbaschi; Jim Yee; Alicia Dillard; Peter A D Steel; William S Lee; Kathleen A McDonough; Yuqing Qiu; Thomas J Ketas; Eric Francomano; P J Klasse; Layla Hatem; Lars F Westblade; Heng Wu; Haode Chen; Robert Zuk; Hong Tan; Roxanne Girardin; Alan P Dupuis; Anne F Payne; John P Moore; Melissa M Cushing; Amy Chadburn; Zhen Zhao Journal: medRxiv Date: 2020-11-22
Authors: Andrew Bryan; Gregory Pepper; Mark H Wener; Susan L Fink; Chihiro Morishima; Anu Chaudhary; Keith R Jerome; Patrick C Mathias; Alexander L Greninger Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Jenna J Guthmiller; Olivia Stovicek; Jiaolong Wang; Siriruk Changrob; Lei Li; Peter Halfmann; Nai-Ying Zheng; Henry Utset; Christopher T Stamper; Haley L Dugan; William D Miller; Min Huang; Ya-Nan Dai; Christopher A Nelson; Paige D Hall; Maud Jansen; Kumaran Shanmugarajah; Jessica S Donington; Florian Krammer; Daved H Fremont; Andrzej Joachimiak; Yoshihiro Kawaoka; Vera Tesic; Maria Lucia Madariaga; Patrick C Wilson Journal: bioRxiv Date: 2020-09-13
Authors: S Wesley Long; Randall J Olsen; Paul A Christensen; David W Bernard; James J Davis; Maulik Shukla; Marcus Nguyen; Matthew Ojeda Saavedra; Prasanti Yerramilli; Layne Pruitt; Sishir Subedi; Hung-Che Kuo; Heather Hendrickson; Ghazaleh Eskandari; Hoang A T Nguyen; J Hunter Long; Muthiah Kumaraswami; Jule Goike; Daniel Boutz; Jimmy Gollihar; Jason S McLellan; Chia-Wei Chou; Kamyab Javanmardi; Ilya J Finkelstein; James M Musser Journal: medRxiv Date: 2020-09-29
Authors: Paul Duengelhoef; Johannes Hartl; Darius Rüther; Silja Steinmann; Thomas T Brehm; Jan Philipp Weltzsch; Fabian Glaser; G M Schaub; Martina Sterneck; Marcial Sebode; Christina Weiler-Normann; Marylyn M Addo; Marc Lütgehetmann; Friedrich Haag; Christoph Schramm; Julian Schulze Zur Wiesch; Ansgar W Lohse Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 4.623