Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), became a pandemic in early 2020. Lateral flow immunoassays for antibody testing have been viewed as a cheap and rapidly deployable method for determining previous infection with SARS-CoV-2; however, these assays have shown unacceptably low sensitivity. We report on nine lateral flow immunoassays currently available and compare their titer sensitivity in serum to a best-practice enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and viral neutralization assay. For a small group of PCR-positive, we found two lateral flow immunoassay devices with titer sensitivity roughly equal to the ELISA; these devices were positive for all PCR-positive patients harboring SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. One of these devices was deployed in Northern Italy to test its sensitivity and specificity in a real-world clinical setting. Using the device with fingerstick blood on a cohort of 27 hospitalized PCR-positive patients and seven hospitalized controls, ROC curve analysis gave AUC values of 0.7646 for IgG. For comparison, this assay was also tested with saliva from the same patient population and showed reduced discrimination between cases and controls with AUC values of 0.6841 for IgG. Furthermore, during viral neutralization testing, one patient was discovered to harbor autoantibodies to ACE2, with implications for how immune responses are profiled. We show here through a proof-of-concept study that these lateral flow devices can be as analytically sensitive as ELISAs and adopted into hospital protocols; however, additional improvements to these devices remain necessary before their clinical deployment.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported in part by NIAID, National Institutes of Health, Grant R21AI138135 to AL and Grant R01AI136722 subcontract to AL; NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Grant R21HD097472 to LL; and funding from the George Mason University Provosts Office. The funding agencies had no role in experimental design, data analysis, or manuscript preparation.
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:
GMU IRB: Liotta 1592168-1
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
All data, if not included in supplemental materials, is freely available upon request.
