Performance of an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay for SARS-COV-2 IgM and head-to-head comparison of Abbott and Roche COVID-19 antibody assays

Introduction: We evaluated the performance of the new Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay on the Architect immunoassay analyser and compared it to the Architect IgG/Roche Cobas total antibody assays in both SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive cases and healthy controls. Method: 200 healthy control samples and 48 ind...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: CS, L. (Author), SK, P. (Author), SP, H. (Author), TC, A. (Author), YL, L. (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier B.V. 2021
Subjects:
IgM
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 03399nam a2200553Ia 4500
001 10.1016-j.plabm.2021.e00230
008 220427s2021 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 23525517 (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a Performance of an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay for SARS-COV-2 IgM and head-to-head comparison of Abbott and Roche COVID-19 antibody assays 
260 0 |b Elsevier B.V.  |c 2021 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00230 
520 3 |a Introduction: We evaluated the performance of the new Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay on the Architect immunoassay analyser and compared it to the Architect IgG/Roche Cobas total antibody assays in both SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive cases and healthy controls. Method: 200 healthy control samples and 48 individuals with other antibody-positive disorders (18 hepatitis/18 dengue/11 ANA/1 dsDNA) served to assess for potential cross-reactivity. Anonymised residual leftover sera positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR were recruited as cases (N ​= ​133). The sensitivity/specificity/cross-reactivity of the Architect IgM assay were assessed. Concordance between the 3 assays were also analysed. Results: There was no cross-reactivity with controls and other antibody positive samples. The Architect IgM assay was 100% specific (95% CI 98.5 to 100) and sensitivity was 77.8% (95% CI 60.8 to 89.9) ≥14 days post-first positive RT-PCR (POS). Sensitivity of the combined Architect IgM and IgG results (30.8%) was significantly better than the Cobas total antibodies (15.4%) in early disease (p ​= ​0.04). While the Architect IgM assay had moderate agreement with the Cobas total antibody result (Cohen's kappa 0.72), a combined Architect IgM and IgG result had better agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.83). Conclusion: The Architect IgM assay has good specificity and no cross-reactivity with other antibody positive cases. A combined Architect IgM and IgG result has better sensitivity than the individual assays for early COVID-19. The Architect IgM assay is not comparable to the Cobas total antibody assay, but the Architect IgM and IgG combined result has good agreement with the Cobas assay. © 2021 The Authors 
650 0 4 |a adult 
650 0 4 |a aged 
650 0 4 |a Antibodies 
650 0 4 |a antibody detection 
650 0 4 |a Article 
650 0 4 |a Assay evaluation 
650 0 4 |a automation 
650 0 4 |a chemiluminescence immunoassay 
650 0 4 |a clinical article 
650 0 4 |a controlled study 
650 0 4 |a coronavirus disease 2019 
650 0 4 |a COVID 19 antibody assay 
650 0 4 |a cross reaction 
650 0 4 |a diagnostic accuracy 
650 0 4 |a diagnostic test accuracy study 
650 0 4 |a double stranded DNA 
650 0 4 |a female 
650 0 4 |a human 
650 0 4 |a IgM 
650 0 4 |a immunoassay 
650 0 4 |a immunoglobulin G 
650 0 4 |a immunoglobulin M 
650 0 4 |a intermethod comparison 
650 0 4 |a male 
650 0 4 |a nonhuman 
650 0 4 |a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction 
650 0 4 |a SARS-CoV-2 
650 0 4 |a sensitivity and specificity 
650 0 4 |a seroconversion 
650 0 4 |a Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 
650 0 4 |a virus detection 
700 1 |a CS, L.  |e author 
700 1 |a SK, P.  |e author 
700 1 |a SP, H.  |e author 
700 1 |a TC, A.  |e author 
700 1 |a YL, L.  |e author 
773 |t Practical Laboratory Medicine