Show simple item record

AuthorNasrallah, Gheyath K
AuthorDargham, Soha R
AuthorShurrab, Farah
AuthorAl-Sadeq, Duaa W
AuthorAl-Jighefee, Hadeel
AuthorChemaitelly, Hiam
AuthorAl Kanaani, Zaina
AuthorAl Khal, Abdullatif
AuthorAl Kuwari, Einas
AuthorCoyle, Peter
AuthorJeremijenko, Andrew
AuthorKaleeckal, Anvar Hassan
AuthorLatif, Ali Nizar
AuthorShaik, Riyazuddin Mohammad
AuthorRahim, Hanan F Abdul
AuthorYassine, Hadi M
AuthorAl Kuwari, Mohamed G
AuthorQotba, Hamda
AuthorAl Romaihi, Hamad Eid
AuthorTang, Patrick
AuthorBertollini, Roberto
AuthorAl-Thani, Mohamed H
AuthorAlthani, Asmaa A
AuthorAbu-Raddad, Laith J
Available date2021-06-08T09:19:34Z
Publication Date2021-06-01
Publication Namescientific reports
Identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91235-x
CitationNasrallah, G.K., Dargham, S.R., Shurrab, F. et al. Analytic comparison between three high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays reveals minor discrepancies in a high-incidence population. Sci Rep 11, 11837 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91235-x
ISSN2045-2322
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10576/20550
AbstractPerformance 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. PCR and serological testing was performed on 394 individuals. 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's kappa statistic ranged from 0.86 to 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. 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.
Languageen
PublisherNature Research
SubjectSARS‑CoV‑2
antibody
assays
TitleAnalytic comparison between three high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays reveals minor discrepancies in a high-incidence population
TypeArticle
dc.accessType Open Access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record