Abstract
Objectives Antigen-based rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs) are useful tools for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, misleading demonstrations of the Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag-RDT on social media claimed that SARS-CoV-2 antigen could be detected in municipal water and food products. To offer a scientific rebuttal to pandemic misinformation and disinformation, this study explored the impact of using the Panbio SARS-CoV-2 assay with conditions falling outside of manufacturer recommendations.
Methods Using Panbio, various water and food products, laboratory buffers, and SARS-CoV-2-negative clinical specimens were tested, with and without manufacturer buffer. Additional experiments were conducted to assess the role of each Panbio buffer component (tricine, NaCl, pH, and tween-20), as well as the impact of temperatures (4°C, 20°C, and 45°C) and humidity (90%) on assay performance.
Results Direct sample testing (without the kit buffer), resulted in false positive signals resembling those obtained with SARS-CoV-2-positive controls tested under proper conditions. The likely explanation of these artifacts is non-specific interactions between the SARS-CoV-2-specific conjugated and capture antibodies, as proteinase K treatment abrogated this phenomenon, and thermal shift assays showed pH-induced conformational changes under conditions promoting artifact formation. Omitting, altering, and reverse engineering the kit buffer all supported the importance of maintaining buffering capacity, ionic strength, and pH for accurate kit function. Interestingly, the Panbio assay could tolerate some extremes of temperature and humidity outside of manufacturer claims.
Conclusions Our data support strict adherence to manufacturer instructions to avoid false positive SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT reactions, otherwise resulting in anxiety, overuse of public health resources, and dissemination of misinformation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work received no private or public funding, with the exception of the Panbio kits that were provided in-kind from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).
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 evaluation was deemed exempt from Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board approval, as the activities described in this manuscript were conducted in fulfillment of ongoing verification of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays used in Nova Scotia, and are therefore considered a quality assurance initiative. Clinical specimens tested were obtained from anonymized residual samples collected for routine diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 from consenting participants, and all data related to clinical specimens were provided anonymized, de-identified, and were used solely with the intent to evaluate the potential for false positives in these clinical specimen types for rapid antigen testing programs used in Nova Scotia.
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 has been included in the manuscript or supplemental materials.