Dried blood spot specimens for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing: A multi-site, multi-assay comparison.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
22
07
2021
accepted:
23
11
2021
entrez:
7
12
2021
pubmed:
8
12
2021
medline:
16
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The true severity of infection due to COVID-19 is under-represented because it is based on only those who are tested. Although nucleic acid amplifications tests (NAAT) are the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnostic testing, serological assays provide better population-level SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates. Implementing large sero-surveys present several logistical challenges within Canada due its unique geography including rural and remote communities. Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling is a practical solution but comparative performance data on SARS-CoV-2 serological tests using DBS is currently lacking. Here we present test performance data from a well-characterized SARS-CoV-2 DBS panel sent to laboratories across Canada representing 10 commercial and 2 in-house developed tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Three commercial assays identified all positive and negative DBS correctly corresponding to a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI = 72.2, 100). Two in-house assays also performed equally well. In contrast, several commercial assays could not achieve a sensitivity greater than 40% or a negative predictive value greater than 60%. Our findings represent the foundation for future validation studies on DBS specimens that will play a central role in strengthening Canada's public health policy in response to COVID-19.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34874948
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261003
pii: PONE-D-21-23872
pmc: PMC8651133
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0261003Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021 Jan 1;145(1):32-38
pubmed: 33367664
Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1033-1036
pubmed: 32398876
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Oct;38(10):1174-1183
pubmed: 32855547
Microorganisms. 2021 Jan 25;9(2):
pubmed: 33504067
JCI Insight. 2020 Oct 2;5(19):
pubmed: 32870820
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Dec 17;59(1):
pubmed: 33023911
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Jul 13;3:95
pubmed: 32695885
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32341142
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):265-269
pubmed: 32015508
J Clin Virol. 2020 Jul;128:104426
pubmed: 32417674
Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 Oct 13;154(5):610-619
pubmed: 32808976
CMAJ. 2020 Aug 24;192(34):E973-E979
pubmed: 32753391
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 25;6:CD013652
pubmed: 32584464
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;26(12):2970-2973
pubmed: 32969788
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 19;10(1):20188
pubmed: 33214612
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;20(12):1390-1400
pubmed: 32979318
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 8;11(1):7754
pubmed: 33833246
Nat Med. 2021 Jan;27(1):28-33
pubmed: 33442016
BMC Med. 2020 Nov 4;18(1):346
pubmed: 33143712
Cell Rep Med. 2020 Aug 25;1(5):100062
pubmed: 32838340
AAPS J. 2020 Oct 6;22(6):127
pubmed: 33025311
Sci Rep. 2021 May 4;11(1):9475
pubmed: 33947894
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 9;15(11):e0241959
pubmed: 33166373
Lancet. 2020 Apr 4;395(10230):1101-1102
pubmed: 32247384
EJIFCC. 2009 Jan 20;19(4):203-11
pubmed: 27683318
Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Oct;509:1-7
pubmed: 32485157
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):e79-e80
pubmed: 32334649
Nat Commun. 2021 Mar 22;12(1):1813
pubmed: 33753738