Clinical and laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for use in a national COVID-19 seroprevalence survey.
clinical epidemiology
respiratory infection
viral infection
Journal
Thorax
ISSN: 1468-3296
Titre abrégé: Thorax
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0417353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
06
07
2020
revised:
22
07
2020
accepted:
25
07
2020
pubmed:
17
8
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
16
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate antibody tests are essential to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver testing at scale. However, reported performance varies, and sensitivity analyses have generally been conducted on serum from hospitalised patients. For use in community testing, evaluation of finger-prick self-tests, in non-hospitalised individuals, is required. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR and were ≥21 days from symptom onset. In phase I, we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to (1) PCR-confirmed infection and (2) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two 'in-house' ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 prepandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum. 95% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.3%) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8 out of 11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21% to 92% versus PCR-confirmed cases and from 22% to 96% versus composite ELISA positives. Concordance between finger-prick and serum testing was at best moderate (kappa 0.56) and, at worst, slight (kappa 0.13). All LFIAs had high specificity (97.2%-99.8%). LFIA sensitivity and sample concordance is variable, highlighting the importance of evaluations in setting of intended use. This rigorous approach to LFIA evaluation identified a test with high specificity (98.6% (95%CI 97.1% to 99.4%)), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with finger prick (95% CI 70.5% to 93.5%)) and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Accurate antibody tests are essential to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver testing at scale. However, reported performance varies, and sensitivity analyses have generally been conducted on serum from hospitalised patients. For use in community testing, evaluation of finger-prick self-tests, in non-hospitalised individuals, is required.
METHODS
Sensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR and were ≥21 days from symptom onset. In phase I, we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to (1) PCR-confirmed infection and (2) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two 'in-house' ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 prepandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum.
FINDINGS
95% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.3%) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8 out of 11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21% to 92% versus PCR-confirmed cases and from 22% to 96% versus composite ELISA positives. Concordance between finger-prick and serum testing was at best moderate (kappa 0.56) and, at worst, slight (kappa 0.13). All LFIAs had high specificity (97.2%-99.8%).
INTERPRETATION
LFIA sensitivity and sample concordance is variable, highlighting the importance of evaluations in setting of intended use. This rigorous approach to LFIA evaluation identified a test with high specificity (98.6% (95%CI 97.1% to 99.4%)), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with finger prick (95% CI 70.5% to 93.5%)) and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32796119
pii: thoraxjnl-2020-215732
doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215732
pmc: PMC7430184
mid: EMS93764
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
DNA, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1082-1088Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19012
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-2016-07-012
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 200861/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_19078
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/J008761/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S019669/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R015600/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 25;6:CD013652
pubmed: 32584464
Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1200-1204
pubmed: 32555424
Wellcome Open Res. 2020 Jun 11;5:139
pubmed: 33748431
Environ Res. 2014 Oct;134:280-5
pubmed: 25194498
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 25;9(1):2687
pubmed: 30804356
BMJ. 2020 Jun 24;369:m2420
pubmed: 32580928
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jan;4(1):45-51
pubmed: 30393106
Int J Epidemiol. 2021 May 17;50(2):410-419
pubmed: 33615345
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 12;11(1):5860
pubmed: 33712679
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):437-442
pubmed: 32555388
Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 27;56(2):
pubmed: 32398307
PLoS Pathog. 2020 Sep 24;16(9):e1008817
pubmed: 32970782
Blood Transfus. 2021 May;19(3):181-189
pubmed: 33539289
J Immunol Methods. 2016 Aug;435:27-31
pubmed: 27208400
Lancet. 2020 Aug 22;396(10250):535-544
pubmed: 32645347
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 May 19;10(5):
pubmed: 32438677