Abstract
Background The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic necessitated rapid and global responses across all areas of healthcare, including an unprecedented interest in serological immunoassays to detect antibodies to the virus. The dynamics of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is still not well understood.
Methods We measure SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in plasma samples from 880 people in Northern Ireland by Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgA/IgM, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and EuroImmun IgG SARS-CoV-2 ELISA immunoassays to analyse immune dynamics over time. Using these results, we develop a ‘pseudo gold standard’ reference cohort against which to assess immunoassay performance. We report performance metrics for the UK-RTC AbC-19 rapid lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) against a characterised panel of 304 positives established using the ‘pseudo gold standard’ system and 350 negative samples.
Results We detect persistence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG up to 140 days (20 weeks) post infection, across all three antibody immunoassays, at levels up to 4.4 times the cut-off for a positive result by Roche measurement. Using our ‘pseudo gold standard’ cohort (n=348 positive, n=510 negative) we determine the sensitivity and specificity of the three commercial immunoassays used (EuroImmun; Sens. 98.9% [97.7-99.7%]; Spec. 99.2% [98.4-99.8%]; Roche; Sens. 99.4% [98.6-100%]; Spec. (96.7% [95.1-98.2%]; Abbott; Sens. 86.8% [83.1-90.2%]; Spec. (99.2% [98.4-99.8%]). The UK-RTC AbC-19 lateral flow immunoassay using shows a sensitivity of 97.70% (95.72%-99.34%) and specificity of 100% (100.00-100.00%).
Conclusions Through comprehensive analysis of a large cohort of pre-pandemic and pandemic individuals, we show detectable levels of IgG antibodies, lasting up to 140 days, providing insight to immunity levels at later time points. We propose an alternative to RT-PCR positive status as a standard for assessing SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays and show strong performance metrics for the AbC-19 rapid test.
Competing Interest Statement
At the time of this study TM and JML acted as advisors to CIGA HealthCare, an industrial partner in the UK Rapid Test Consortium. No personal financial reward or renumeration was received for this advisory role. At the time of submission of this manuscript TM and JML no longer held these advisory positions. All other authors have no potential conflict of interest to report.
Funding Statement
Funding for this study was obtained from UK-RTC to cover all laboratory costs incurred.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by Ulster University Institutional Ethics committee (REC/20/0043), South Birmingham REC (The PANDEMIC Study IRAS Project ID: 286041Ref 20/WM/0184).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Published data may be shared upon request to the corresponding author.
