RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Performance of Immunoglobulin G Serology on Finger Prick Capillary Dried Blood Spot Samples to Measure SARS-CoV-2 Humoral Immunogenicity
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.07.29.21261156
DO 10.1101/2021.07.29.21261156
A1 Nikiforuk, Aidan M.
A1 McMillan, Brynn
A1 Bartlett, Sofia R.
A1 Márquez, Ana Citlali
A1 Pidduck, Tamara
A1 Kustra, Jesse
A1 Goldfarb, David M.
A1 Barakauskas, Vilte
A1 Sinclair, Graham
A1 Patrick, David M.
A1 Sadarangani, Manish
A1 Ogilvie, Gina S.
A1 Morshed, Muhammad
A1 Sekirov, Inna
A1 Jassem, Agatha N.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/31/2021.07.29.21261156.abstract
AB Importance Measuring humoral immunogenicity of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 vaccines and finding population-level correlates of protection against coronavirus disease presents an immediate challenge to public health practitioners.Objective To study the diagnostic accuracy and predictive value of finger prick capillary dried blood spot samples tested using an anti-immunoglobulin G (IgG) serology assay to measure SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and the humoral immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccination.Design, Setting and Participants This cross-sectional study enrolled participants (n= 644) who had paired DBS and serum samples collected by finger prick and venipuncture, respectively, in British Columbia, Canada between January 12th, 2020 and May 21st, 2021. Samples were tested by a multiplex electrochemiluminescence assay for SARS-CoV-2 anti-Spike (S), -Nucleocapsid (N) and -receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG reactivity using a Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) platform. Additionally, unpaired DBS samples (n= 6,706) that were collected in the province during the same time period were included for analysis of SARS-CoV-2 anti-N IgG reactivity.Exposure Collection of a capillary dried blood spot by finger prick alone or paired with serum by venipuncture.Outcome Humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 measured by detection of anti-S, -N or - RBD IgG.Results In comparison to a paired-serum reference, dried blood spot samples possess a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 61%-91%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI: 95%-98%). Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis (ROC) found that participant DBS samples tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG by MSD V-PLEX COVID-19 Coronavirus Panel 2 assay accurately classify SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion at an 88% percent rate, AUC= 88% (95% CI: 81%-96%). Modelling found that a dried blood spot-based testing approach has a high positive predictive value (98% [95% CI: 98%-99%]) in a theoretical population with seventy-five percent COVID-19 vaccine coverage. At lower vaccine coverages of fifteen and forty-five percent, the test’s positive predictive value decreased, and the negative predictive value increased.Conclusion We demonstrate that dried blood spot collected samples, when tested using an electrochemiluminescence assay, provide a valid alternative to traditional venipuncture and should be considered to reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.Question What is the diagnostic accuracy and predictive value of immunoglobulin G serology on finger prick capillary dried blood spot samples to measure SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunogenicity?Findings In comparison to a paired-serum reference, dried blood spot samples tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG possess a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 61%-91%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI: 95%-98%). Dried blood spot testing has a positive predictive value of 98% (95% CI: 98%-99%) when modelled in a theoretical population with COVID-19 vaccine coverage of seventy-five percent.Meaning Dried blood spot samples have equal diagnostic accuracy to serum collected by venipuncture when tested by electrochemiluminescence assay and should be considered to reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.Competing Interest StatementS.R.B. has advised and spoken for Gilead Sciences and AbbVie (all personal payments given as unrestricted donations to BC Centre for Disease Control Foundation for Public Health) and has received investigator-initiated research funding from Gilead Sciences via her institution. M.S. has been an investigator on projects funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Pasteur, Seqirus, Symvivo and VBI Vaccines. All funds have been paid to his institute, and he has not received any personal payments.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (COV-2020-1120, COV-2020-1279) and Genome British Columbia (COV050). Additional funding was provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada through the COVID-19 Immunity Taskforce (2021-HQ-000141), BC SUPPORT Unit (C19-PE-V4), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (#434951) and the University of British Columbia-Public Scholars Initiative. M.S. is supported via salary awards from the BC Children's Hospital Foundation, the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.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:The University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board provided ethical review and approval for studies from which participants' specimens were cross-sectionally sampled and tested (H20-02184, H20-02402 and H20-01886). 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.YesThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the data steward but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of the data steward.