RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of Four Lateral Flow Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.07.01.20129882
DO 10.1101/2020.07.01.20129882
A1 Kathrine McAulay
A1 Andrew Bryan
A1 Alexander L. Greninger
A1 Francisca Grill
A1 Douglas Lake
A1 Erin J. Kaleta
A1 Thomas E. Grys
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/03/2020.07.01.20129882.abstract
AB Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a potentially life-threatening respiratory infection caused by severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), for which numerous serologic assays are available. In a CLIA laboratory setting, we used a retrospective sample set (n = 457) to evaluate two lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs; two iterations of Rapid Response™ COVID-19 Test Cassette, BTNX Inc.) and a subset of to evaluate SARS-COV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, ACON Laboratories (n = 200); and Standard Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Duo, SD BIOSENSOR (n = 155) for their capacity to detect of SARS-CoV-2 IgG. In a cohort of primarily hospitalized patients with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19, the BTNX assays demonstrated 95% and 92% agreement with the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and sensitivity was highest at ≥ 14 days from symptom onset [BTNX kit 1, 95%; BTNX kit 2, 91%]. ACON and SD assays demonstrated 99% and 100% agreement with the Abbott assay at ≥ 14 days from symptom onset. Specificity was measured using 74 specimens collected prior to SARS-CoV-2 circulation in the United States and 31 “cross-reactivity challenge” specimens, including those from patients with a history of seasonal coronavirus infection and was 98% for BTNX kit 1 and ACON and 100% for BTNX kit 2 and SD. Taken with data from EUA assays, these results suggest that LFIAs may provide adequate results for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2. Replicating these results in fingerstick blood in outpatient populations, would further support the possibility that LFIAs may be useful to increase access to serologic testingCompeting Interest StatementTEG represents Mayo Clinic in a joint venture with Safe Health Systems and has shared intellectual property that may result in royalty sharing.Funding StatementThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Kit manufacturers ACON and BTNX supplied some of the kits and Safe Health Systems purchased additional assay kits for use in this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was reviewed and deemed exempt by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. Use of excess clinical specimens was reviewed by the Mayo Clinic Biospecimens Committee and an appropriate Material Transfer Agreement was drawn up to allow access to deidentified specimens from the University of Washington School of Medicine.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThere are no external datasets associated with this manuscript. All data can be found in the manuscript and supplementary material.