RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Assessing the performance of a serological point-of-care test in measuring detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.02.04.21251126
DO 10.1101/2021.02.04.21251126
A1 Coyle, Peter V.
A1 Kahlout, Reham Awni El
A1 Dargham, Soha R.
A1 Chemaitelly, Hiam
A1 Kacem, Mohamed Ali Ben Hadj
A1 Al-Mawlawi, Naema Hassan Abdulla
A1 Gilliani, Imtiaz
A1 Younes, Nourah
A1 Kanaani, Zaina Al
A1 Khal, Abdullatif Al
A1 Kuwari, Einas Al
A1 Jeremijenko, Andrew
A1 Kaleeckal, Anvar Hassan
A1 Latif, Ali Nizar
A1 Shaik, Riyazuddin Mohammad
A1 Rahim, Hanan F. Abdul
A1 Nasrallah, Gheyath K.
A1 Yassine, Hadi M.
A1 Kuwari, Mohamed G. Al
A1 Al Romaihi, Hamad Eid
A1 Tang, Patrick
A1 Bertollini, Roberto
A1 Al-Thani, Mohamed H.
A1 Abu-Raddad, Laith J.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/06/2021.02.04.21251126.abstract
AB Objective To investigate the performance of a rapid point-of-care antibody test, the BioMedomics COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test, in comparison with a high-quality, validated, laboratory-based platform, the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay.Methods Serological testing was conducted on 708 individuals. Concordance metrics were estimated. Logistic regression was used to assess associations with seropositivity.Results SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was 63.4% (449/708; 95% CI 59.8%-66.9%) using the BioMedomics assay and 71.9% (509/708; 95% CI 68.5%-75.1%) using the Elecsys assay. There were 62 discordant results between the two assays. One specimen was seropositive in the BioMedomics assay, but seronegative in the Elecsys assay, while 61 specimens were seropositive in the Elecsys assay, but seronegative in the BioMedomics assay. Positive, negative, and overall percent agreements between the two assays were 88.0% (95% CI 84.9%-90.6%), 99.5% (95% CI 97.2%-99.9%), and 91.2% (95% CI 88.9%-93.1%), respectively, with a Cohen’s kappa of 0.80 (95% CI 0.77-0.83), indicating excellent agreement. Excluding specimens with lower antibody titers, the agreement improved with positive, negative, and overall percent concordance of 91.2% (95% CI 88.2%-93.6%), 99.5% (95% CI 97.2%-99.9%), and 93.9% (95% CI 91.7%-95.5%), respectively, and a Cohen’s kappa of 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89). Logistic regression confirmed better agreement with higher antibody titers.Conclusion The BioMedomics COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test demonstrated excellent performance in measuring detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, supporting the utility of such rapid point-of-care serological testing to guide the public health responses and possible vaccine prioritization.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe authors are grateful for support provided by Hamad Medical Corporation, the Ministry of Public Health, and the Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Biomathematics Research Core, both at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar. The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Research methods were approved by the ethics review boards at Hamad Medical Center (HMC) and Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll relevant data are available in the main text and supplementary material.