Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Comparative Evaluation of Three Serologic Assays for the Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies

Keenan O. Hogan, Dave Klippel, Fred V. Plapp, Rachael M. Liesman
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167643
Keenan O. Hogan
aDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dave Klippel
aDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fred V. Plapp
aDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
MD PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachael M. Liesman
aDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rliesman{at}kumc.edu
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background and aims Serologic assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies are being developed and approved rapidly with limited external validation. Accurate diagnostics are an essential component to pandemic management and public health.

Materials and methods Residual serum samples (N=113) from patients who were evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 infection status by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were retrospectively tested in parallel across three automated SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays: Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG, Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody, and Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG.

Results Testing of 51 PCR-positive and 62 PCR-negative patients demonstrated qualitative inter-test agreement of 96% overall, 100% in PCR-negative patients, 88% in early positive samples (0-13 days post positive PCR), and 100% in convalescent samples (14+ days post positive PCR).

Calculated kappa values for paired inter-test agreement ranged 0.93-0.96. Compared to PCR, overall percent positive agreement ranged from 82-86% (100% for convalescent samples) and percent negative agreement was 100% for each assay.

Conclusion This study demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy and inter-test agreement for three automated SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays. External validation of serologic assays is critical to ensure diagnostic accuracy and appropriate utilization of critical resources.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

University of Kansas Medical Center Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board Study #00145715

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Declaration of Interest: None.

Data Availability

No supplementary material or external datasets are available for this article.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted August 05, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparative Evaluation of Three Serologic Assays for the Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparative Evaluation of Three Serologic Assays for the Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies
Keenan O. Hogan, Dave Klippel, Fred V. Plapp, Rachael M. Liesman
medRxiv 2020.08.04.20167643; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167643
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparative Evaluation of Three Serologic Assays for the Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies
Keenan O. Hogan, Dave Klippel, Fred V. Plapp, Rachael M. Liesman
medRxiv 2020.08.04.20167643; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.20167643

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Pathology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)