Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays for use in epidemiological surveillance in Scotland

Abstract

BackgroundSero-surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial to monitoring levels of population exposure and informing public health responses, but may be influenced by variability in performance between available assays. MethodsFive commercial immunoassays and a neutralising activity assay were used to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in routine primary care and paediatric samples collected during the first wave of the pandemic in NHS Lothian, Scotland as part of ongoing surveillance efforts. For each assay, sensitivity and specificity was calculated relative to consensus results (majority of immunoassays positive = overall positive) and neutralising activity. Quantitative correlation was performed between serological and neutralising titres. ResultsSeroprevalence ranged from 3.4–7.3 % in primary care patients and 3–5.9 % in paediatric patients according to different immunoassays. Neutralising activity was detectable in 2.8 % and 1.3 % respectively. Relative assay performance changed depending on comparison to immunoassay consensus versus neutralising activity and qualititative versus quantitative agreement. Cross-reactivity with endemic seasonal coronaviruses was confirmed by neutralising assay in false positives for one immunoassay. Presence of false positives for another assay was found specifically in paediatric but not adult samples. ConclusionsFive serological assays show variable accuracy when applied to the general population, impacting seroprevalence estimates. Assay performance may also vary in detection of protective neutralising antibody levels. These aspects should be considered in assay selection and interpretation in epidemiological studies.