Dataset Information

Evaluation of the IgG antibody response to SARS CoV-2 infection and performance of a lateral flow immunoassay: cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis over 11 months.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the dynamics and longevity of the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and assess the performance of professional use of the UK-RTC AbC-19 Rapid Test lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for the target condition of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG antibodies.

Design

Nationwide serological study.

Setting

Northern Ireland, UK, May 2020-February 2021.

Participants

Plasma samples were collected from a diverse cohort of individuals from the general public (n=279), Northern Ireland healthcare workers (n=195), pre-pandemic blood donations and research studies (n=223) and through a convalescent plasma programme (n=183). Plasma donors (n=101) were followed with sequential samples over 11 months post-symptom onset.

Main outcome measures

SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in plasma samples using Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgA/IgM, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and EuroImmun IgG SARS-CoV-2 ELISA immunoassays over time. UK-RTC AbC-19 LFIA sensitivity and specificity, estimated using a three-reference standard system to establish a characterised panel of 330 positive and 488 negative SARS-CoV-2 IgG samples.

Results

We detected persistence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies for up to 10 months post-infection, across a minimum of two laboratory immunoassays. On the known positive cohort, the UK-RTC AbC-19 LFIA showed a sensitivity of 97.58% (95.28% to 98.95%) and on known negatives, showed specificity of 99.59% (98.53 % to 99.95%).

Conclusions

Through comprehensive analysis of a cohort of pre-pandemic and pandemic individuals, we show detectable levels of IgG antibodies, lasting over 46 weeks when assessed by EuroImmun ELISA, providing insight to antibody levels at later time points post-infection. We show good laboratory validation performance metrics for the AbC-19 rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG antibody detection in a laboratory-based setting.

SUBMITTER: Robertson LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8245291 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The urgent need to scale up testing capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted the rapid development of point-of-care diagnostic tools such as lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) for large-scale community-based rapid testing. However, studies of how the general public perform when using LFIA tests in different environmental settings are scarce. This user experience (UX) study of 264 participants in Northern Ireland aimed to gather a better understanding of how self-administered LFIA tests were performed by the general public at home. The UX performance was assessed via analysis of a post-test questionnaire including 30 polar questions and 11 7-point Likert scale questions, which covers the multidimensional aspects of UX in terms of ease of use, effectiveness, efficiency, accuracy and satisfaction. Results show that 96.6% of participants completed the test with an overall average UX score of 95.27% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.71-97.83%], which suggests a good degree of user experience and effectiveness. Efficiency was assessed based on the use of physical resources and human support received, together with the mental effort of self-administering the test measured via NASA Task Load Index (TLX). The results for six TLX subscales show that the participants scored the test highest for mental demand and lowest for physical demand, but the average TLX score suggests that the general public have a relatively low level of mental workload when using LFIA self-testing at home. Five printed LFIA testing results (i.e. the 'simulated' results) were used as the ground truth to assess the participant's performance in interpreting the test results. The overall agreement (accuracy) was 80.63% [95% CI 75.21-86.05%] with a Kappa score 0.67 [95% CI 0.58-0.75] indicating substantial agreement. The users scored lower in confidence when interpreting test results that were weak positive cases (due to the relatively low signal intensity in the test-line) compared to strong positive cases. The end-users also found that the kit was easier to use than they expected (p < 0.001) and 231 of 264 (87.5%) reported that the test kit would meet their requirements if they needed an antibody testing kit. The overall findings provide an insight into the opportunities for improving the design of self-administered SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing kits for the general public and to inform protocols for future UX studies of LFIA rapid test kits.