RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparative assessment of multiple COVID-19 serological technologies supports continued evaluation of point-of-care lateral flow assays in hospital and community healthcare settings
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.06.02.20120345
DO 10.1101/2020.06.02.20120345
A1 Pickering, Suzanne
A1 Betancor, Gilberto
A1 Galão, Rui Pedro
A1 Merrick, Blair
A1 Signell, Adrian W.
A1 Wilson, Harry D.
A1 Ik, Mark Tan Kia
A1 Seow, Jeffrey
A1 Graham, Carl
A1 Acors, Sam
A1 Kouphou, Neophytos
A1 Steel, Kathryn J.A.
A1 Hemmings, Oliver
A1 Patel, Amita
A1 Nebbia, Gaia
A1 Douthwaite, Sam
A1 O’Connell, Lorcan
A1 Luptak, Jakub
A1 McCoy, Laura E.
A1 Brouwer, Philip
A1 Gils, Marit J. van
A1 Sanders, Rogier W.
A1 Nunez, Rocio Martinez
A1 Bisnauthsing, Karen
A1 O’Hara, Geraldine
A1 MacMahon, Eithne
A1 Batra, Rahul
A1 Malim, Michael H.
A1 Neil, Stuart J.D.
A1 Doores, Katie J.
A1 Edgeworth, Jonathan D.
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/04/2020.06.02.20120345.abstract
AB There is a clear requirement for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 antibody test, both as a complement to existing diagnostic capabilities and for determining community seroprevalence. We therefore evaluated the performance of a variety of antibody testing technologies and their potential as diagnostic tools. A highly specific in-house ELISA was developed for the detection of anti-spike (S), -receptor binding domain (RBD) and -nucleocapsid (N) antibodies and used for the cross-comparison of ten commercial serological assays – a chemiluminescence-based platform, two ELISAs and seven colloidal gold lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) – on an identical panel of 110 SARS-CoV-2-positive samples and 50 pre-pandemic negatives. There was a wide variation in the performance of the different platforms, with specificity ranging from 82% to 100%, and overall sensitivity from 60.9% to 87.3%. However, the head-to-head comparison of multiple sero-diagnostic assays on identical sample sets revealed that performance is highly dependent on the time of sampling, with sensitivities of over 95% seen in several tests when assessing samples from more than 20 days post onset of symptoms. Furthermore, these analyses identified clear outlying samples that were negative in all tests, but were later shown to be from individuals with mildest disease presentation. Rigorous comparison of antibody testing platforms will inform the deployment of point-of-care technologies in healthcare settings and their use in the monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 infections.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe research and the Kings College London Infectious Diseases Biobank were supported by the Department of Health via a National Institute for Health Research comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre award to Guys and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with Kings College London and Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. AWS and CG were supported by the MRC-KCL Doctoral Training Partnership in Biomedical Sciences (MR/N013700/1). GB was supported by the Wellcome Trust (106223/Z/14/Z to MHM). SA was supported by an MRC-KCL Doctoral Training Partnership in Biomedical Sciences industrial Collaborative Award in Science & Engineering (iCASE) in partnership with Orchard Therapeutics (MR/R015643/1). NK was supported by the Medical Research Council (MR/S023747/1 to MHM). SP, HDW and SJDN were supported by a Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (WT098049AIA). Kings Together Rapid COVID-19 Call awards to MHM, KJD, SJDN and RMN. Fondation Dormeur, Vaduz for funding equipment (KJD). MRC Discovery Award MC/PC/15068 to SJDN, KJD and MHM. Development of SARS-CoV-2 reagents (RBD) was partially supported by the NIAID Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance (CEIRS) contract HHSN272201400008C. 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:For the St Thomas Hospital samples, surplus serum was retrieved from the routine biochemistry laboratory at point of discard, and then aliquoted, stored and linked with a limited clinical dataset by the direct care team, before anonymisation under an existing ethics framework (REC reference 18/NW/0584) and with expedited R&D approval. Serum/plasma samples used as negative controls in the in-house ELISA development were obtained from the KCL Infectious Disease Biobank (KD1-220518), UCLH (11/LO/0421 IRAS:43993) and The Royal Free Hospital (11/WA/0077, ref. NC2016.002).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.YesAggregate anonymised data was used in this study and is not available for distribution outside the host organisations.