Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence: Navigating the absence of a gold standard - Saeed, Sahar; O’Brien, Sheila F.; Abe, Kento; Yi, QiLong; Rathod, Bhavisha; Wang, Jenny; Fazel-Zarandi, Mahya; Tuite, Ashleigh; Fisman, David; Wood, Heidi; Colwill, Karen; Gingras, Anne-Claude; et al. (medRxiv, 2021)
Background Multiple anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays are available, but no gold standard exists. We assessed four assays using various methodological approaches to estimate SARS-COV-2 seroprevalence during the first COVID-19 wave in Canada.Methods This serial cross-sectional study was conducted using plasma samples from healthy blood donors between April-September 2020. Qualitative assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was based on four assays: Abbott Architect SARS-Cov-2 IgG assay (target nucleocapsid) (Abbott-NP) and three in-house IgG ELISA assays (target spike glycoprotein (Spike), spike receptor binding domain (RBD), and nucleocapsid (NP)). Seroprevalence was estimated using multiple composite reference standards (CRS) and by a series of Bayesian Latent Class Models (BLCM) (using uninformative, weakly, and informative priors).Results 8999 blood samples were tested. The Abbott-NP assay consistently estimated seroprevalence to be lower than the ELISA-based assays. Discordance between assays was common, 13 unique diagnostic phenotypes were observed. Only 32 samples (0.4%) were positive by all four assays. BLCM using uninformative priors predicted seroprevalence increased from 0.7% (95% credible interval (CrI); 0.4, 1.0%) in April/May to 0.8% (95% CrI 0.5, 1.2%) in June/July to 1.1% (95% CrI 0.7, 1.6) in August/September. Results from CRS were very similar to the BLCM. Assay characteristics varied considerably over time. Overall spike had the highest sensitivity (89.1% (95% CrI 79.2, 96.9%), while the sensitivity of the Abbott-NP assay waned from 65.3% (95% CrI 43.6, 85.0%) in April/May to 45.9% (95% CrI 27.8, 65.6) by August/September.Discussion We found low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rates at the end of the first wave and estimates derived from single assays may be biased.Summary Multiple anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays are available, but no gold standard exists. We used four unique assays to estimate very low SARS-COV-2 seroprevalence during the first COVID-19 wave in Canada. Caution should be exercised when interpretating seroprevalence estimates from single assays.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementCanadian Institutes of Health Research and Alberta Innovates (VR2 172723), Krembil Foundation to the Sinai Health System Foundation. The robotics equipment used for the ELISA assays is housed in the Network Biology Collaborative Centre at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, a facility supported by Canada Foundation for Innovation funding, by the Ontarian Government and by Genome Canada and Ontario Genomics (OGI-139). Commercial Abbott Architect SARS-Cov-2 IgG assay kit costs were partially supported by Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois. Abbott analyzers used at Canadian Blood Services were provided by the COVID-19 Immunity task Force (CITF).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Research Ethics Board of the Canadian Blood Services and Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute (LTRI) (REB study #20-0194-E) approved this study and exempted study-specific consent.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData is propriety