Are commercial antibody assays substantially underestimating SARS-CoV-2 ever infection? An analysis on a population-based sample in a high exposure setting
Abstract
Background
Performance of three automated commercial serological IgG-based assays was investigated for assessing SARS-CoV-2 ever (past or current) infection in a population-based sample in a high exposure setting.
Methods
PCR and serological testing was performed on 394 individuals.
Results
SARS-CoV-2-IgG seroprevalence was 42.9% (95% CI 38.1%-47.8%), 40.6% (95% CI 35.9%-45.5%), and 42.4% (95% CI 37.6%-47.3%) using the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. Between the three assays, overall, positive, and negative percent agreements ranged between 93.2%-95.7%, 89.3%-92.8%, and 93.8%-97.8%, respectively; Cohen kappa statistic ranged from 0.86-0.91; and 35 specimens (8.9%) showed discordant results. Among all individuals, 12.5% (95% CI 9.6%-16.1%) had current infection, as assessed by PCR. Of these, only 34.7% (95% CI 22.9%-48.7%) were seropositive by at least one assay. A total of 216 individuals (54.8%; 95% CI 49.9%-59.7%) had evidence of ever infection using antibody testing and/or PCR during or prior to this study. Of these, only 78.2%, 74.1%, and 77.3% were seropositive in the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively.
Conclusions
All three assays had comparable performance and excellent agreement, but missed at least 20% of individuals with past or current infection. Commercial antibody assays can substantially underestimate ever infection, more so when infection rates are high.
Related articles
Related articles are currently not available for this article.