Abstract
Background Robust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little pre-market validation.
Methods Performance characteristics for five PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT).
Results Sensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% CI 43.1 to 60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI 59.4–75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI 89.2–98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI 96.1–100.0%). Overall ELISA sensitivity for either IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI 59.4–75.6), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI 85.0–98.3%) for samples > 14 days post symptom onset. Overall, sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI 53.2–68.4%), rising to 91.2%% (95% CI 81.8–96.7%) for samples collected > 14 days post-symptom onset, with a specificity 94.4% (95% CI 89.2–97.5%),
Conclusion Performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in the reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
DAW is supported by an Investigator Grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (APP1174555). BPH is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (APP1105905). KB is supported by an NHMRC Postgraduate Scholarship (GNT1191321). This work was supported by a grant from the NHMRC Medical Research Future Fund (APP2002317).
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:
Ethical approval for this project was obtained from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee (RMH HREC QA2020052).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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
We have included all relevant data.