Abstract
Background and objectives Several antibody tests are available to detect SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies, many of which address different antigens. Rapid point-of-care (POC) tests have been doubted due to an eventual risk of production errors, although it is unstudied whether such error would affect test sensitivity and/or specificity. We aimed to evaluate two separate production lots of a commercially available test intended for rapid detection of IgM and IgG against the N-terminal part of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S1).
Materials and methods Serum samples from individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by RT-PCR and/or serology, and pre-COVID-19 negative control sera gathered from a biobank during 2018 were collected. The presence of anti-S1 IgM/IgG was verified by an in-house Luminex-based serological assay, serving as reference method. The index test was a commercially available rapid POC-test (the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette [Zhejiang Orient Gene Biotech Co Ltd, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China/Healgen Scientific, LLC, U.S.A.]).
Results One hundred samples were verified positive for anti-S1 IgG (median fluorescence intensity (MFI) ≥900) and 74 for anti-S1 IgM (MFI ≥700), confirmed by RT-PCR (n=90) and/or serology (n=89). None of the negative controls (n=200; MFI <300) had SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 IgM, while one tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 IgG. For the two lots, the sensitivities of the rapid test were 93.2% (69/74; 95% CI: 85.1% – 97.1%) and 87.8% (65/74; 95% CI: 78.5% – 93.5%) for IgM, respectively 93.0% (93/100; 95% CI: 86.3% – 96.6%) and 100.0% for IgG (100/100; 95% CI: 96.3% – 100.0%). The specificity for both lots was 100% for IgM (200/200; 95% CI: 98.1% – 100%) and 99.5% for IgG (199/200; 95% CI: 97.2% – 99.9%). The positive predictive value was 100% for IgM and 98.9% and 99.0% for IgG. The negative predictive value was 95.7% and 97.6% for IgM, and 96.6% and 100.0% for IgG.
Conclusion The rapid POC-test used in this study is suitable to assess SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 specific IgM/IgG, as a measure of previous virus exposure on an individual level. While the specificity was not affected by production lot, external validation of separate lots of rapid POC-tests is encouraged to ensure high sensitivity before market introduction.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR, 2017-05807 and 2018-02569).
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:
The study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2020 02047).
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
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos