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: Six automated assays were assessed: 1) DiaSorin LIAISON(TM) SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG; 2) Abbott ARCHITECT(TM) SARS-CoV-2 IgG; 3) Ortho VITROS(TM) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total; 4) VITROS(TM) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG; 5) Siemens SARS-CoV-2 Total Assay; and 6) Roche Elecsys(TM) 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%.