ABSTRACT
Background Seroprevalence studies in key worker populations are essential to understand the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. Various technologies, including laboratory assays and point-of-care self-tests, are available for antibody testing. The interpretation of seroprevalence studies requires comparative data on the performance of antibody tests.
Methods In June 2020, current and former members of the UK Police forces and Fire service performed a self-test lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) and provided a saliva sample, nasopharyngeal swab, venous blood samples for Abbott ELISA and had a nurse performed LFIA. We present the prevalence of PCR positivity and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in this cohort following the first wave of infection in England; the acceptability and usability of self-test LFIAs (defined as use of the LFIA kit and provision of a valid result, respectively); and determine the sensitivity and specificity of LFIAs compared to laboratory ELISAs.
Results In this cohort of non-healthcare key workers, 7.4% (396/5,348; 95% CI, 6.7-8.1) were antibody positive. Seroprevalence was 8.9% (6.9-11.4) in those under 40 years, 11.5% (8.8-15.0) in those of non-white British ethnicity and 7.8% (7.1-8.7) in those currently working. The self-test LFIA had an acceptability of 97.7% and a usability of 90.0%. There was substantial agreement between within-participant LFIA results (kappa 0.80; 0.77-0.83). The LFIAs (self-test and nurse-performed) had a similar performance: compared to ELISA, sensitivity was 82.1% (77.7-86.0) self-test and 76.4% (71.9-80.5) nurse-performed with specificity of 97.8% (97.3-98.2) and 98.5% (98.1-98.8) respectively.
Conclusion A greater proportion of the non-healthcare key worker cohort showed evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 than the general population at 6.0% (5.8-6.1) following the first wave in England. The high acceptability and usability reported by participants and the similar performance of self-test and nurse-performed LFIAs indicate that the self-test LFIA is fit for purpose for home-testing in occupational and community prevalence studies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16228.2
Funding Statement
This work was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care in England. Authors acknowledge funding from National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Professorship [to G.C.], NIHR Senior Investigator Award [to A.D., H.W.], Medical Research Council Centre for Environment and Health [MR/L01341X/1, MR/S019669/1 to P.E.],NIHR Imperial College NHS Trust Biomedical Research Centre [to P.E, H.W.], NIHR Applied Research Collaborative [to H.W.], NIHR Health Protection Research Units in Chemical and Radiation Threats and Hazards [to P.E., B.D.] and in Environmental Exposures and Health [to P.E.], British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence at Imperial College London [RE/18/4/34215 to P.E.], Wellcome Trust [200861/Z/16/Z, 200187/Z/15/Z to H.W.], Health Data Research UK (HDR UK) [to P.E.], and UK Dementia Research Institute at Imperial [MC_PC_17114 to P.E.]. We thank The Huo Family Foundation for their support of our work on COVID-19.
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:
This work was undertaken as part of the REACT-2 study, with ethical approval from South Central Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 20/SC/0206; IRAS 283805). Airwave study participants have given consent to be contacted for other research studies (IRAS project ID: 259978).
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
Aggregate data from study participants is presented in tables and supplementary information.
