Suitability of Two Rapid Lateral Flow Immunochromatographic Assays for Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Activity of Sera

Introduction

Serological testing is increasingly recognized as a useful tool for control of the COVID-19 pandemic; beyond complementing RT-PCR assays for disease diagnosis in symptomatic patients, detection of specific antibodies allows for estimating SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence and virus spread in a given population, infering protection against reinfection, evaluating vaccine efficacy and selecting appropriate plasma specimens from convalescent COVID-19 patients for passive transfer therapies [1-3]. Numerous SARS-CoV-2 serological tests have been commercialized [4], among which lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFIC) are particularly appealing because of their rapid turnaround times, simplicity of use and suitability for point of care testing.

SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NtAb) are presumed to play a major protective role against SARS-CoV-2 infection [5-7]. Unfortunately, virus neutralization assays, whether using wild-type SARS-CoV-2, engineered SARS-CoV-2 pseudotypes or chimeric viruses [8] are unsuited for routine testing, thus creating a need to assess commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays for their capacity to provide reliable information on sera neutralizing activity. Several studies have evaluated the performance of LFIC in comparison with NtAb assays in subjects with past or ongoing SARS-CoV-2 infection [9-12]. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, only one has attempted to quantitatively correlate results yielded by the two assay types by analyzing the strength of test line reactivity in LFIC devices and NtAb₅₀ titers [11].

Here, we sought to evaluate the performance of two commercially-available LFIC, widely used in our country, compared with a SARS-CoV-2 neutralization pseudotype assay for COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitalized patients, and determine whether the intensity of the test band in LFIC was associated with levels of NtAb recognizing the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein.

Material and Methods

Commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG LFIC immunoassays

Two LFIC were evaluated: SARS-COV-2 Antibody test from Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co., Ltd. (China), which detects SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgG and IgM) in a single test band, and INNOVITA 2019-nCoV Ab Test (Beijing Innovita Biological technology, China) which detects IgG and IgM separately. The antigenic specificity of antibodies detected by these assays was not disclosed (to our knowledge). Both assays were performed according to the protocol provided by the respective manufacturer. Test line intensity scoring was done using a 4-level scale (Figure 1), in which 0 corresponded to a negative result (absence of a test line), 1+ represented a weak positive result (intensity of test band lower than control band), 2+ a positive result (intensity of test band equal to control line), and 3+ a strong positive result (intensity of test band greater than control line). Four readers independently scored each test and the average of the scores was recorded as the final LFIC result.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Test line intensity was scored using a 4-level scale. From left to right; 0: negative result, 1+: weak positive result (intensity of test band lower than the control band); 2+: positive result (intensity of test band equal to the control line); 3+: strong positive result (intensity of test band greater than the control line).

Results

Discussion

In this study the Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody LFIC assay was found to exhibit excellent overall sensitivity (91.1%) in a cohort COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe forms of the disease. As expected, sensitivity was higher for sera collected beyond day 14 after onset of symptoms than for those drawn earlier on. An even higher sensitivity for the Wondfo assay than that observed in the current study was reported by Martínez and colleagues [15] in a mixed cohort including SARS-CoV-2 infected asymptomatic individuals and patients presenting with mild to severe COVID-19. In turn, Guedes-López et al. [16] reported a sensitivity of 83% when testing sera collected between days 15-28 after symptoms onset in a cohort comprising symptomatic healthcare workers and patients admitted to the Emergency Department.

Overall, the INNOVITA 2019-nCoV assay performed worse than the Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody LFIC assay in terms of sensitivity (72.2% for IgG and 82.2% for IgM), although combining the results of both test lines yielded an acceptable figure (85.6%). Nevertheless, when only sera obtained late after symptoms onset were analyzed, sensitivity was similar to the Wondfo assay (93.9%). To our knowledge, only one study has evaluated the performance of the INNOVITA LFIC assay [17]. Yong et al. [17] reported a sensitivity of 50% and 52% for IgM, and 87.5% and 91.3% in sera collected within 8-15 days and ≥15 days after the onset of symptoms, respectively, in a cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Differences in the precise timing of sera collection and the severity of COVID-19 may account for these rather minor discrepancies across the above-mentioned studies; as for the latter, Martínez et al. [15] found a lower sensitivity for asymptomatic individuals (84.6%) than for the entire study group (89.9%).

A handful of studies have compared the performance of LFIC assays versus SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays [9-12], but none of the LFIC evaluated herein were included. These studies differed in many aspects, namely, the timing of sera collection, clinical presentation of COVID-19, neutralization antibody assay employed, NtAb₅₀ titer cutoff value for positive results, and the reference method for sensitivity calculations (either the NtAb assay itself or RT-PCR results). Not surprisingly, overall sensitivities reported for these LFIC assays vary widely, ranging from 46% [11] to 100%. [10]. Here we used a SARS-CoV-2-S-pseudotype as the viral input; nevertheless, NtAb levels measured by this assay have been shown to correlate strongly with those from assays using live SARS-CoV-2 [8]. Although the overall sensitivity of both LFIC assays was lower than the neutralization assay, it was comparable when sera collected ≥15 days were analyzed separately.

A novel contribution of the current study is that a strong association was found between the strength of test line reactivity and NtAb₅₀ titers, notably when employing the Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody assay. Using a simple grading scale, we could discriminate reasonably well between sera containing high and low NtAb₅₀ titers (≥1/160 or <1/160, respectively). In sera giving reactivities ≥2+ (comparable to or more intense than the control line) we identified high-NtAb level sera with excellent PPV and NPV. Weidner and colleagues [9] were the first to prove the suitability of this approach. By using a 4-level intensity scale on the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab rapid test, they were able to predict NtAb₅₀ titers (live SARS-CoV-2) >1/200 with NPV and PPV of 92%. The Wantai assay detects antibodies binding the S receptor binding domain which includes several highly immunogenic epitopes eliciting potent NtAb responses within several epitopes [18,19], making the above-reported association somewhat unsurprising. The antigenic target/s of the LFIC assays evaluated herein are unknown to us, thus precluding speculation on that matter.

The observer-dependent scoring of test line reactivity may be construed as a limitation of this study, although in fact all four readers evaluating LFIC results concurred in the categorization of all sera. Moreover, readings were consistent across different rounds of testing (not shown).

In summary, our data support the use of all LFIC assays evaluated herein, particularly the Wondfo test, for COVID-19 diagnosis, especially when testing sera collected late after symptoms onset. In addition, we have shown that these rapid immunoassays can be used to infer the neutralizing activity of sera against SARS-CoV-2.

Compliance with ethical standards