PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Calderon-Flores, Rodrigo
AU  - Caceres-Cardenas, Guillermo
AU  - Alí, Karla
AU  - De Vos, Margaretha
AU  - Emperador, Devy
AU  - Cáceres, Tatiana
AU  - Eca, Anika
AU  - Villa, Luz
AU  - Albertini, Audrey
AU  - Sacks, Jilian A.
AU  - Ugarte-Gil, Cesar
TI  - Diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunoassays for COVID-19 antibodies in Peruvian population
AID  - 10.1101/2023.01.13.23284518
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.01.13.23284518
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/13/2023.01.13.23284518.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/13/2023.01.13.23284518.full
AB  - Background Serological assays have been used in seroprevalence studies to inform the dynamics of COVID-19. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests are a very practical technology to use for this objective; however, one of their challenges may be variable diagnostic performance. Given the numerous available LFIA tests, evaluation of their accuracy is critical before real-world implementation.Methods We performed a retrospective diagnostic evaluation study to independently determine the diagnostic accuracy of 4 different antibody-detection LFIA tests. The sample panel was comprised of specimens collected and stored in biobanks; specifically, specimens that were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 collected at various times throughout the COVID-19 disease course and those that were collected before the pandemic, during 2018 or earlier, from individuals with upper respiratory symptoms but were negative for tuberculosis. Clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) was analyzed overall, and subset across individual antibody isotypes, and days from symptoms onset.Results A very high specificity (98% - 100%) was found for all four tests. Overall sensitivity was variable, ranging from 29% [95% CI: 21%-39%] to 64% [95% CI: 54%-73%]. When considering detection of IgM only, the highest sensitivity was 42% [95% CI: 32%-52%], compared to 57% [95% CI: 47%-66%] for IgG only. When the analysis was restricted to at least 15 days since symptom onset, across any isotype, the sensitivity reached 90% for all four brands.Conclusion All four LFIA tests proved effective for identifying COVID-19 antibodies when two conditions were met: 1) at least 15 days have elapsed since symptom onset and 2) a sample is considered positive when either IgM or IgG is present. With these considerations, the use of this assays could help in seroprevalence studies or further exploration of its potential uses.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo conflict of interest is associated with this publication, and there has been no significant financial support for this work that may have influenced its outcomes.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:An IRB approval was obtained prior to the execution of the study (UPCH IRB SIDISI: 202569). The study also was registered in the Peruvian COVID-19 study database PRISA (EI00000001341). The use of an informed consent was not necessary since all archived samples were collected from individuals who provided informed consent. All archived samples were de-identified and participant confidentiality was maintained. The study was conducted in accordance with ethical principles derived from international guidelines including the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice Guidelines: ICH GCP E6 (R2) and local laws and regulations. The results from the tests under evaluation were used only for research purposes.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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 openly available in Figshare repository at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21801280.v1 https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21801280.v1