Dataset Information

Development and clinical evaluation of a rapid antibody lateral flow assay for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which has quickly spread worldwide since its outbreak in December 2019. One of the primary measures for controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection is an accurate assay for its diagnosis. SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR kits suffer from some limitations, including false-negative results in the clinic. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the development of a rapid antibody test kit for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Methods

The nuclear capsid protein (N) and spike protein 1 (S1) fragments of SARS-CoV-2 were expressed in Escherichia coli, and rapid antibody-based tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection were developed. To evaluate their clinical applications, the serum from COVID-19 patients, suspected COVID-19 patients, recovering COVID-19 patients, patients with general fever or pulmonary infection, doctors and nurses who worked at the fever clinic, and health professionals was analyzed by the rapid antibody test kits. The serum from patients infected with Mycoplasma pneumoniae and patients with respiratory tract infection was further analyzed to test its cross-reactivity with other respiratory pathogens.

Results

A 47 kDa N protein and 67 kDa S1 fragment of SARS-CoV-2 were successfully expressed, purified, and renatured. The rapid antibody test with recombinant N protein showed higher positive rate than the rapid IgM antibody test with recombinant S1 protein. Clinical evaluation showed that the rapid antibody test kit with recombinant N protein had 88.56 % analytical sensitivity and 97.42 % specificity for COVID-19 patients, 53.48 % positive rate for suspected COVID-19 patients, 57.14 % positive rate for recovering COVID-19 patients, and 0.5-0.8 % cross-reactivity with other respiratory pathogens. The analytical sensitivity of the kit did not significantly differ in COVID-19 patients with different disease courses (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The rapid antibody test kit with recombinant N protein has high specificity and analytical sensitivity, and can be used for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection combined with RT-PCR.

SUBMITTER: Li K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8381135 | 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.

Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine coverage remains incomplete, being only 15% in low-income countries. Rapid point-of-care tests predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility in the unvaccinated may assist in risk management and vaccine prioritization. We conducted a prospective cohort study in 2,826 participants working in hospitals and Fire and Police services in England, UK, during the pandemic (ISRCTN5660922). Plasma taken at recruitment in June 2020 was tested using four lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices and two laboratory immunoassays detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (UK Rapid Test Consortium's AbC-19 rapid test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM rapid test cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 rapid test cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test; Roche N and Euroimmun S laboratory assays). We monitored participants for microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection for 200 days. We estimated associations between test results at baseline and subsequent infection, using Poisson regression models adjusted for baseline demographic risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Positive IgG results on each of the four LFIAs were associated with lower rates of subsequent infection with adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of 0.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.00 to 0.01), 0.03 (0.02 to 0.05), 0.07 (0.05 to 0.10), and 0.09 (0.07 to 0.12), respectively. The protective association was strongest for AbC-19 and SureScreen. The aIRR for the laboratory Roche N antibody assay at the manufacturer-recommended threshold was similar to those of the two best performing LFIAs at 0.03 (0.01 to 0.10). Lateral flow devices measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgG predicted disease risk in unvaccinated individuals over a 200-day follow-up. The association of some LFIAs with subsequent infection was similar to laboratory immunoassays. IMPORTANCE Previous research has demonstrated an association between the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and protection from subsequent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG are a cheap, readily deployed technology that has been used on a large scale in population screening programs, yet no studies have investigated whether LFIA results are associated with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a prospective cohort study of 2,826 United Kingdom key workers, we found positivity in lateral flow test results had a strong negative association with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection within 200 days in an unvaccinated population. Positivity on more-specific but less-sensitive tests was associated with a markedly decreased rate of disease; protection associated with testing positive using more sensitive devices detecting lower levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was more modest. Lateral flow tests with high specificity may have a role in estimation of SARS-CoV-2 disease risk in unvaccinated populations.