Stringent thresholds in SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays lead to under-detection of mild infections

<br><strong>Background<br></strong> Thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays have typically been determined using samples from symptomatic, often hospitalised, patients. In this setting the sensitivity and specificity of the best performing assays can both exceed 98%. Howeve...

Volledige beschrijving

Bibliografische gegevens
Hoofdauteurs: Eyre, DW, Lumley, SF, O'Donnell, D, Stoesser, NE, Matthews, PC, Howarth, A, Hatch, SB, Marsden, BD, Cox, S, James, T, Cornall, RJ, Stuart, DI, Screaton, G, Ebner, D, Crook, DW, Conlon, CP, Jeffery, K, Walker, TM, Peto, TEA
Formaat: Journal article
Taal:English
Gepubliceerd in: BioMed Central 2021
Omschrijving
Samenvatting:<br><strong>Background<br></strong> Thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays have typically been determined using samples from symptomatic, often hospitalised, patients. In this setting the sensitivity and specificity of the best performing assays can both exceed 98%. However, antibody assay performance following mild infection is less clear. <br><strong> Methods<br></strong> We assessed quantitative IgG responses in a cohort of healthcare workers in Oxford, UK, with a high pre-test probability of Covid-19, in particular the 991/11,475(8.6%) who reported loss of smell/taste. We use anosmia/ageusia and other risk factors as probes for Covid-19 infection potentially undiagnosed by immunoassays by investigating their relationship with antibody readings either side of assay thresholds. <br><strong> Results<br></strong> The proportion of healthcare workers reporting anosmia/ageusia increased at antibody readings below diagnostic thresholds using an in-house ELISA (n = 9324) and the Abbott Architect chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA; n = 11,324): 426/906 (47%) reported anosmia/ageusia with a positive ELISA, 59/449 (13.1%) with high-negative and 326/7969 (4.1%) with low-negative readings. Similarly, by CMIA, 518/1093 (47.4%) with a positive result reported anosmia/ageusia, 106/686 (15.5%) with a high-negative and 358/9563 (3.7%) with a low-negative result. Adjusting for the proportion of staff reporting anosmia/ageusia suggests the sensitivity of both assays in mild infection is lower than previously reported: Oxford ELISA 89.8% (95%CI 86.6–92.8%) and Abbott CMIA 79.3% (75.9–82.7%). <br><strong> Conclusion<br></strong> Following mild SARS-CoV-2 infection 10–30% of individuals may have negative immunoassay results. While lowered diagnostic thresholds may result in unacceptable specificity, our findings have implications for epidemiological analyses and result interpretation in individuals with a high pre-test probability. Samples from mild PCR-confirmed infections should be included in SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay evaluations.