Cargando…

Multicentre Performance Evaluation of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay as an Aid in Determining Previous Exposure to SARS-CoV-2

INTRODUCTION: We performed a multicentre evaluation of the Elecsys(®) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics), an assay utilising a recombinant protein representing the nucleocapsid (N) antigen, for the in vitro qualitative detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronav...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Riester, Elena, Majchrzak, Mario, Mühlbacher, Annelies, Tinguely, Caroline, Findeisen, Peter, Hegel, Johannes Kolja, Laimighofer, Michael, Rank, Christopher M., Schönfeld, Kathrin, Langen, Florina, Laengin, Tina, Niederhauser, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8349665/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34368915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40121-021-00504-9
_version_ 1783735609974587392
author Riester, Elena
Majchrzak, Mario
Mühlbacher, Annelies
Tinguely, Caroline
Findeisen, Peter
Hegel, Johannes Kolja
Laimighofer, Michael
Rank, Christopher M.
Schönfeld, Kathrin
Langen, Florina
Laengin, Tina
Niederhauser, Christoph
author_facet Riester, Elena
Majchrzak, Mario
Mühlbacher, Annelies
Tinguely, Caroline
Findeisen, Peter
Hegel, Johannes Kolja
Laimighofer, Michael
Rank, Christopher M.
Schönfeld, Kathrin
Langen, Florina
Laengin, Tina
Niederhauser, Christoph
author_sort Riester, Elena
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: We performed a multicentre evaluation of the Elecsys(®) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics), an assay utilising a recombinant protein representing the nucleocapsid (N) antigen, for the in vitro qualitative detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: Specificity was evaluated using serum/plasma samples from blood donors and routine diagnostic specimens collected before September 2019 (i.e., presumed negative for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies); sensitivity was evaluated using samples from patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Method comparison was performed versus commercially available assays. RESULTS: Overall specificity for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (n = 9575) was 99.85% (95% CI 99.75–99.92): blood donors (n = 6714; 99.82%), routine diagnostic specimens (n = 2861; 99.93%), pregnant women (n = 2256; 99.91%), paediatric samples (n = 205; 100.00%). The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated significantly higher specificity versus LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (99.71% vs. 98.48%), EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 94.87%), ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (100.00% vs. 87.32%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM (100.00% vs. 99.58%) assays, and comparable specificity to ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (99.75% vs. 99.65%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 100.00%) assays. Overall sensitivity for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay samples drawn at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation (n = 219) was 93.61% (95% CI 89.51–96.46). No statistically significant differences in sensitivity were observed between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay versus EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (90.32% vs. 95.16%) and ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (84.81% vs. 87.34%) assays. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay showed significantly lower sensitivity versus ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (85.19% vs. 95.06%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (86.25% vs. 93.75%) assays, but significantly higher sensitivity versus the iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay (86.25% vs. 33.75%). CONCLUSION: The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated very high specificity and high sensitivity in samples collected at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting its use to aid in determination of previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00504-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8349665
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83496652021-08-09 Multicentre Performance Evaluation of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay as an Aid in Determining Previous Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Riester, Elena Majchrzak, Mario Mühlbacher, Annelies Tinguely, Caroline Findeisen, Peter Hegel, Johannes Kolja Laimighofer, Michael Rank, Christopher M. Schönfeld, Kathrin Langen, Florina Laengin, Tina Niederhauser, Christoph Infect Dis Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: We performed a multicentre evaluation of the Elecsys(®) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics), an assay utilising a recombinant protein representing the nucleocapsid (N) antigen, for the in vitro qualitative detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: Specificity was evaluated using serum/plasma samples from blood donors and routine diagnostic specimens collected before September 2019 (i.e., presumed negative for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies); sensitivity was evaluated using samples from patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Method comparison was performed versus commercially available assays. RESULTS: Overall specificity for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (n = 9575) was 99.85% (95% CI 99.75–99.92): blood donors (n = 6714; 99.82%), routine diagnostic specimens (n = 2861; 99.93%), pregnant women (n = 2256; 99.91%), paediatric samples (n = 205; 100.00%). The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated significantly higher specificity versus LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (99.71% vs. 98.48%), EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 94.87%), ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (100.00% vs. 87.32%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM (100.00% vs. 99.58%) assays, and comparable specificity to ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (99.75% vs. 99.65%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 100.00%) assays. Overall sensitivity for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay samples drawn at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation (n = 219) was 93.61% (95% CI 89.51–96.46). No statistically significant differences in sensitivity were observed between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay versus EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (90.32% vs. 95.16%) and ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (84.81% vs. 87.34%) assays. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay showed significantly lower sensitivity versus ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (85.19% vs. 95.06%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (86.25% vs. 93.75%) assays, but significantly higher sensitivity versus the iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay (86.25% vs. 33.75%). CONCLUSION: The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated very high specificity and high sensitivity in samples collected at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting its use to aid in determination of previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00504-9. Springer Healthcare 2021-08-09 2021-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8349665/ /pubmed/34368915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40121-021-00504-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Riester, Elena
Majchrzak, Mario
Mühlbacher, Annelies
Tinguely, Caroline
Findeisen, Peter
Hegel, Johannes Kolja
Laimighofer, Michael
Rank, Christopher M.
Schönfeld, Kathrin
Langen, Florina
Laengin, Tina
Niederhauser, Christoph
Multicentre Performance Evaluation of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay as an Aid in Determining Previous Exposure to SARS-CoV-2
title Multicentre Performance Evaluation of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay as an Aid in Determining Previous Exposure to SARS-CoV-2
title_full Multicentre Performance Evaluation of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay as an Aid in Determining Previous Exposure to SARS-CoV-2
title_fullStr Multicentre Performance Evaluation of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay as an Aid in Determining Previous Exposure to SARS-CoV-2
title_full_unstemmed Multicentre Performance Evaluation of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay as an Aid in Determining Previous Exposure to SARS-CoV-2
title_short Multicentre Performance Evaluation of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay as an Aid in Determining Previous Exposure to SARS-CoV-2
title_sort multicentre performance evaluation of the elecsys anti-sars-cov-2 immunoassay as an aid in determining previous exposure to sars-cov-2
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8349665/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34368915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40121-021-00504-9
work_keys_str_mv AT riesterelena multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT majchrzakmario multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT muhlbacherannelies multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT tinguelycaroline multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT findeisenpeter multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT hegeljohanneskolja multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT laimighofermichael multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT rankchristopherm multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT schonfeldkathrin multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT langenflorina multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT laengintina multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2
AT niederhauserchristoph multicentreperformanceevaluationoftheelecsysantisarscov2immunoassayasanaidindeterminingpreviousexposuretosarscov2