SARS-CoV-2 serology: Validation of high-throughput chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) platforms and a field study in British Columbia
Inna Sekirov, Vilte Barakauskas, Janet Simons, Darrel Cook, Brandon Bates, Laura Burns, Shazia Masud, Marthe Charles, Meghan McLennan, Annie Mak, Navdeep Chahil, Rohit Vijh, Althea Hayden, David A. Goldfarb, Paul N. Levett, Mel Krajden, Muhammad Morshed
Abstract
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is required for estimating population seroprevalence and vaccine response studies. It may also increase case identification when used as an adjunct to routine molecular testing. We performed a validation study and evaluated the use of automated high-throughput assays in a field study of COVID-19-affected care facilities. METHODS: Anti-SARS-CoV-2. The validation study included 107 samples (42 known positive; 65 presumed negative). The field study included 296 samples (92 PCR positive; 204 PCR negative or not PCR tested). All samples were tested by the six assays. RESULTS: All assays had sensitivities >90% in the field study, while in the validation study, 5/6 assays were >90% sensitive and DiaSorin was 79% sensitive. Specificities and negative predictive values were >95% for all assays. Field study estimated positive predictive values at 1-10% disease prevalence were 100% for Siemens, Abbott and Roche, while DiaSorin and Ortho assays had lower PPVs at 1% prevalence, but PPVs increased at 5-10% prevalence. In the field study, addition of serology increased diagnoses by 16% compared to PCR testing alone. CONCLUSIONS: All assays evaluated in this study demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for samples collected at least 14 days post-symptom onset, while sensitivity was variable 0-14 days after infection. The addition of serology to the outbreak investigations increased case detection by 16%.