In:
The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 227, No. 3 ( 2023-02-01), p. 371-380
Abstract:
Evaluating the performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological assays and clearly articulating the utility of selected antigens, isotypes, and thresholds is crucial to understanding the prevalence of infection within selected communities. Methods This cross-sectional study, implemented in 2020, screened PCR–confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patients (n = 86), banked prepandemic and negative samples (n = 96), healthcare workers and family members (n = 552), and university employees (n = 327) for anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain, trimeric spike protein, and nucleocapsid protein immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgA antibodies with a laboratory-developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and tested how antigen, isotype and threshold choices affected the seroprevalence outcomes. The following threshold methods were evaluated: (i) mean + 3 standard deviations of the negative controls; (ii) 100% specificity for each antigen-isotype combination; and (iii) the maximal Youden index. Results We found vastly different seroprevalence estimates depending on selected antigens and isotypes and the applied threshold method, ranging from 0.0% to 85.4%. Subsequently, we maximized specificity and reported a seroprevalence, based on more than one antigen, ranging from 9.3% to 25.9%. Conclusions This study revealed the importance of evaluating serosurvey tools for antigen-, isotype-, and threshold-specific sensitivity and specificity, to interpret qualitative serosurvey outcomes reliably and consistently across studies.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0022-1899
,
1537-6613
DOI:
10.1093/infdis/jiac431
Language:
English
Publisher:
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Publication Date:
2023
detail.hit.zdb_id:
1473843-0
Bookmarklink