Estimates of sensitivity and specificity of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies using a Bayesian latent class model approach
Joana P. Costa,Paula Meireles,Eleftherios Meletis,Polychronis Kostoulas,Milton Severo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111267
IF: 7.407
2024-02-03
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Abstract:Objective Assessing the accuracy of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 was challenging due to the lack of a gold standard. This study aimed to estimate the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2-specific serological tests using Bayesian latent class models (BLCM) and compare methods with and without a gold standard. Study Design and Setting In this study, we analysed 356 samples — 254 positives, i.e., from individuals with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis, and 102 negatives, i.e., pre-pandemic samples – using six different rapid serological tests and one laboratory assay. A BLCM was employed to concurrently estimate the sensitivity and specificity of all serological tests for the IgM and IgG antibodies specific for SARS-CoV-2. Non-informative priors were used. A sensitivity analysis was conducted considering three methods: 1) RT-PCR as the gold standard, 2) BLCM with RT-PCR as an imperfect gold standard, and 3) frequentist latent class model (LCM). All analyses used software R version 4.3.0, and BLCM were fitted using package runjags using the software JAGS. Results The BLCM-derived sensitivity for IgM varied from 10.7% [95% credibility interval (95%CrI):1.9-24.6] to 96.9% (95%CrI:91.0-100.0), with specificities ranging from 48.3% (95%CrI:39.0-57.6) to 98.9% (95%CrI:96.2-100.0). Sensitivity for IgG varied between 76.9% (95%CrI:68.2-84.7) and 99.1% (95%CrI:96.1-100.0), and specificity ranged from 49.9% (95%CrI:19.4-95.8) to 99.3% (95%CrI:97.2-100.0). LCM results were comparable to BLCM. Considering the RT-PCR as a gold standard underestimated the tests' sensitivity, particularly for IgM. Conclusion BLCM-derived results deviated from those using a gold standard, which underestimated the tests' characteristics, particularly sensitivity. Although Bayesian and frequentist LCM approaches yield comparable results, BLCM has the benefit of enabling credibility interval computation even when sample power is limited.
public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services