Dataset Information

Accuracy of four lateral flow immunoassays for anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a head-to-head comparative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are used for population surveillance and might have a future role in individual risk assessment. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver results rapidly and at scale, but have widely varying accuracy.

Methods

In a laboratory setting, we performed head-to-head comparisons of four LFIAs: the Rapid Test Consortium's AbC-19^TM Rapid Test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Test Cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test. We analysed blood samples from 2,847 key workers and 1,995 pre-pandemic blood donors with all four devices.

Findings

We observed a clear trade-off between sensitivity and specificity: the IgG band of the SureScreen device and the AbC-19^TM device had higher specificities but OrientGene and Biomerica higher sensitivities. Based on analysis of pre-pandemic samples, SureScreen IgG band had the highest specificity (98.9%, 95% confidence interval 98.3 to 99.3%), which translated to the highest positive predictive value across any pre-test probability: for example, 95.1% (95% uncertainty interval 92.6, 96.8%) at 20% pre-test probability. All four devices showed higher sensitivity at higher antibody concentrations ("spectrum effects"), but the extent of this varied by device.

Interpretation

The estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be used to adjust for test error rates when using these devices to estimate the prevalence of antibody. If tests were used to determine whether an individual has SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, in an example scenario in which 20% of individuals have antibodies we estimate around 5% of positive results on the most specific device would be false positives.

Funding

Public Health England.

SUBMITTER: Jones HE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8176919 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Containing the global severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge due to high horizontal transmissivity and asymptomatic carriage rates. Lateral flow device (LFD) immunoassays were introduced in late 2020 to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals rapidly. While LFD technologies have been used for over 60 years, their widespread use as a public health tool during a pandemic is unprecedented. By the end of 2020, data from studies into the efficacy of the LFDs emerged and showed these point-of-care devices to have very high specificity (ability to identify true negatives) but inadequate sensitivity with high false-negative rates. The low sensitivity (<50%) shown in several studies is a critical public health concern, as asymptomatic or presymptomatic carriers may wrongly be assumed to be noninfectious, posing a significant risk of further spread in the community. Here, we show that the direct visual readout of SARS-CoV-2 LFDs is an inadequate approach to discriminate a potentially infective viral concentration in a biosample. We quantified significant immobilized antigen-antibody-labeled conjugate complexes within the LFDs visually scored as negative using high-sensitivity synchrotron X-ray fluorescence imaging. Correlating quantitative X-ray fluorescence measurements and quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) determined numbers of viral copies, we identified that negatively scored samples could contain up to 100 PFU (equivalent here to ∼10 000 RNA copies/test). The study demonstrates where the shortcomings arise in many of the current direct-readout SARS-CoV-2 LFDs, namely, being a deficiency in the readout as opposed to the potential level of detection of the test, which is orders of magnitude higher. The present findings are of importance both to public health monitoring during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to the rapid refinement of these tools for immediate and future applications.

Project description:BackgroundAs vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are now being rolled out, a better understanding of immunity to the virus, whether from infection, or passive or active immunisation, and the durability of this protection is required. This will benefit from the ability to measure antibody-based protection to SARS-CoV-2, ideally with rapid turnaround and without the need for laboratory-based testing.MethodsWe have developed a lateral flow POC test that can measure levels of RBD-ACE2 neutralising antibody (NAb) from whole blood, with a result that can be determined by eye or quantitatively on a small instrument. We compared our lateral flow test with the gold-standard microneutralisation assay, using samples from convalescent and vaccinated donors, as well as immunised macaques.FindingsWe show a high correlation between our lateral flow test with conventional neutralisation and that this test is applicable with animal samples. We also show that this assay is readily adaptable to test for protection to newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the beta variant which revealed a marked reduction in NAb activity. Lastly, using a cohort of vaccinated humans, we demonstrate that our whole-blood test correlates closely with microneutralisation assay data (specificity 100% and sensitivity 96% at a microneutralisation cutoff of 1:40) and that fingerprick whole blood samples are sufficient for this test.InterpretationTaken together, the COVID-19 NAb-testTM device described here provides a rapid readout of NAb based protection to SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care.FundingSupport was received from the Victorian Operational Infrastructure Support Program and the Australian Government Department of Health. This work was supported by grants from the Department of Health and Human Services of the Victorian State Government; the ARC (CE140100011, CE140100036), the NHMRC (1113293, 2002317 and 1116530), and Medical Research Future Fund Awards (2005544, 2002073, 2002132). Individual researchers were supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leadership Level 1 Investigator Grants (1194036), NHMRC APPRISE Research Fellowship (1116530), NHMRC Leadership Investigator Grant (1173871), NHMRC Principal Research Fellowship (1137285), NHMRC Investigator Grants (1177174 and 1174555) and NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowships (1117766 and 1136322). Grateful support was also received from the A2 Milk Company and the Jack Ma Foundation.