Evaluation of eight lateral flow tests for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a vaccinated population.

BACKGROUND: Rapid determination of an individual's antibody status can be beneficial in understanding an individual's immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and for initiation of therapies that are only deemed effective in sero-negative individuals. Antibody lateral flow tests (LFTs) have potential to address this need as a rapid, point of care test. METHODS: Here we present a proof-of-concept evaluation of eight LFT brands using sera from 95 vaccinated individuals to determine sensitivity for detecting vaccination generated antibodies. Samples were analysed on eight different brands of antibody LFT and an automated chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) that identifies anti-spike antibodies which was used as our reference standard. RESULTS: All 95 (100%) participants tested positive for anti-spike antibodies by the chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) reference standard post-dose two of their SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech, n = 60), AZD1222 (AstraZeneca, n = 31), mRNA-1273 (Moderna, n = 2) and Undeclared Vaccine Brand (n = 2). Sensitivity increased from dose one to dose two in six out of eight LFTs with three tests achieving 100% sensitivity at dose two in detecting anti-spike antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: These tests are demonstrated to be highly sensitive to detect raised antibody levels in vaccinated individuals. RDTs are low cost and rapid alternatives to ELISA based systems.

A high-resolution melt curve toolkit to identify lineage-defining SARS-CoV-2 mutations.

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOCs), with mutations linked to increased transmissibility, vaccine escape and virulence, has necessitated the widespread genomic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2. This has placed a strain on global sequencing capacity, especially in areas lacking the resources for large scale sequencing activities. Here we have developed three separate multiplex high-resolution melting assays to enable the identification of Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron VOCs. The assays were evaluated against whole genome sequencing on upper-respiratory swab samples collected during the Alpha, Delta and Omicron [BA.1] waves of the UK pandemic. The sensitivities of the eight individual primer sets were all 100%, and specificity ranged from 94.6 to 100%. The multiplex HRM assays have potential as a tool for high throughput surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, particularly in areas with limited genomics facilities.

Diagnostic performance of GENEDIA W and ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 antigens tests among symptomatic individuals in Peru and The United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: In order to generate independent performance data regarding accuracy of COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), prospective diagnostic evaluation studies across multiple sites are required to evaluate their performance in different clinical settings. This report describes the clinical evaluation the GENEDIA W COVID-19 Ag Device (Green Cross Medical Science Corp., Chungbuk, Korea) and the ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 Complete Testing Kit (Edinburgh Genetics Ltd, UK), in two testing sites Peru and the United Kingdom. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 456 symptomatic patients at primary points of care in Lima, Peru and 610 symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 Drive-Through testing site in Liverpool, England were analyzed by Ag-RDT and compared to RT-PCR. Analytical evaluation of both Ag-RDTs was assessed using serial dilutions of direct culture supernatant of a clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolate from the B.1.1.7 lineage. RESULTS: For GENEDIA brand, the values of overall sensitivity and specificity were 60.4% [95% CI 52.4-67.9%], and 99.2% [95% CI 97.6-99.7%] respectively; and for Active Xpress+ the overall values of sensitivity and specificity were 66.2% [95% CI 54.0-76.5%], and 99.6% [95% CI 97.9-99.9%] respectively. The analytical limit of detection was determined at 5.0 x 102 pfu/ml what equals to approximately 1.0 x 104 gcn/ml for both Ag-RDTs. The UK cohort had lower median Ct values compared to that of Peru during both evaluations. When split by Ct, both Ag-RDTs had optimum sensitivities at Ct<20 (in Peru; 95% [95% CI 76.4-99.1%] and 100.0% [95% CI 74.1-100.0%] and in the UK; 59.2% [95% CI 44.2-73.0%] and 100.0% [95% CI 15.8-100.0%], for the GENDIA and the ActiveXpress+, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the overall clinical sensitivity of the Genedia did not meet WHO minimum performance requirements for rapid immunoassays in either cohort, the ActiveXpress+ did so for the small UK cohort. This study illustrates comparative performance of Ag-RDTs across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by saliva and nasopharyngeal sampling in frontline healthcare workers: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems worldwide, including the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). We conducted an observational cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline healthcare workers (HCW) working in an acute NHS Trust during the first wave of the pandemic, to answer emerging questions surrounding SARS-CoV-2 infection, diagnosis, transmission and control. METHODS: Using self-collected weekly saliva and twice weekly combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal (OP/NP) samples, in addition to self-assessed symptom profiles and isolation behaviours, we retrospectively compared SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR of saliva and OP/NP samples. We report the association with contemporaneous symptoms and isolation behaviour. RESULTS: Over a 12-week period from 30th March 2020, 40·0% (n = 34/85, 95% confidence interval 31·3-51·8%) HCW had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by surveillance OP/NP swab and/or saliva sample. Symptoms were reported by 47·1% (n = 40) and self-isolation by 25·9% (n = 22) participants. Only 44.1% (n = 15/34) participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection reported any symptoms within 14 days of a positive result and only 29·4% (n = 10/34) reported self-isolation periods. Overall agreement between paired saliva and OP/NP swabs was 93·4% (n = 211/226 pairs) but rates of positive concordance were low. In paired samples with at least one positive result, 35·0% (n = 7/20) were positive exclusively by OP/NP swab, 40·0% (n = 8/20) exclusively by saliva and in only 25·0% (n = 5/20) were the OP/NP and saliva result both positive. CONCLUSIONS: HCW are a potential source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in hospitals and symptom screening will identify the minority of infections. Without routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 screening, it is likely that HCW with SARS-CoV-2 infection would continue to attend work. Saliva, in addition to OP/NP swab testing, facilitated ascertainment of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Combined saliva and OP/NP swab sampling would improve detection of SARS-CoV-2 for surveillance and is recommended for a high sensitivity strategy.

Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of a Novel Coronavirus Antigen Lateral Flow Test among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the commercialization of many antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), requiring independent evaluations. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom. The collected samples (446 nasal swabs from Brazil and 246 nasopharyngeal samples from the UK) were analyzed by the Ag-RDT and compared to reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was performed using direct culture supernatants of SARS-CoV-2 strains from the wild-type (B.1), Alpha (B.1.1.7), Delta (B.1.617.2), Gamma (P.1), and Omicron (B.1.1.529) lineages. An overall sensitivity and specificity of 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.3 to 93.3) and 100.0% (95% CI, 99.1 to 100.0), respectively, were obtained for the Brazilian and UK cohorts. The analytical limit of detection was determined as 1.0 × 103 PFU/mL (Alpha), 2.5 × 102 PFU/mL (Delta), 2.5 × 103 PFU/mL (Gamma), and 1.0 × 103 PFU/mL (Omicron), giving a viral copy equivalent of approximately 2.1 × 104 copies/mL, 9.0 × 105 copies/mL, 1.7 × 106 copies/mL, and 1.8 × 105 copies/mL for the Ag-RDT, respectively. Overall, while a higher sensitivity was claimed by the manufacturers than that found in this study, this evaluation finds that the Ag-RDT meets the WHO minimum performance requirements for sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 Ag-RDTs. This study illustrates the comparative performance of the Hotgen Ag-RDT across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods. IMPORTANCE Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have witnessed growing numbers of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) being brought to market. In the United Kingdom, this was somewhat controlled indirectly as the government offered free tests from a small number of companies. However, as this has now ceased, individuals are responsible for their own acquisition of test kits. Similarly in Brazil, as of January 2022, pharmacies and other health care retailers are permitted to sell Ag-RDTs directly to the community. Many of these Ag-RDTs have not been externally evaluated, and results are not readily available to the public. Thus, there is now a need for a transparent evaluation of Ag-RDTs with both analytical and clinical evaluation. We present an independent review of the Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV Antigen Test (Colloidal Gold) (Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd.), at two sites within Brazil and one in the United Kingdom.

A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing.

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospective diagnostic evaluation comparing self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform RDTs for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. METHODS: Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited at the NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK); one withdrew before analysis. Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT were collected. RDT results were compared to RT-PCR, as the reference standard, to calculate sensitivity and specificity. FINDINGS: Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9-97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0-87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7-19.6, p = 0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3-100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3-100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5-1.7, p = 0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7-100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1-100.0) were not significantly different (p = 0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2-98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5-95.5, p = 0.003). INTERPRETATION: In conclusion, self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer an accurate alternative to healthcare worker taken swabs for use with RDTs. Our results demonstrate that, with no training, self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. This is especially important where the lack of trained healthcare workers restricts access to testing.

SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays as proxies for plaque reduction neutralisation tests.

Severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread globally since its emergence in 2019. Most SARS-CoV-2 infections generate immune responses leading to rising levels of immunoglobulins (Ig) M, A and G which can be detected using diagnostic tests including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Whilst implying previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, the detection of Ig by ELISA does not guarantee the presence of neutralising antibodies (NAb) that can prevent the virus infecting cells. Plaque reduction neutralisation tests (PRNT) detect NAb, but are not amenable to mass testing as they take several days and require use of SARS-CoV-2 in high biocontainment laboratories. We evaluated the ability of IgG and IgM ELISAs targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike subunit 1 receptor binding domain (S1-RBD), and spike subunit 2 (S2) and nucleocapsid protein (NP), at predicting the presence and magnitude of NAb determined by PRNT. IgG S2 + NP ELISA was 96.8% [95% CI 83.8-99.9] sensitive and 88.9% [95% CI 51.8-99.7] specific at predicting the presence of NAbs (PRNT80 > 1:40). IgG and IgM S1-RBD ELISAs correlated with PRNT titre, with higher ELISA results increasing the likelihood of a robust neutralising response. The IgM S1-RBD assay can be used as a rapid, high throughput test to approximate the magnitude of NAb titre.

Streptococcus pneumoniae colonization associates with impaired adaptive immune responses against SARS-CoV-2.

BackgroundAlthough recent epidemiological data suggest that pneumococci may contribute to the risk of SARS-CoV-2 disease, cases of coinfection with Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during hospitalization have been reported infrequently. This apparent contradiction may be explained by interactions of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and pneumococci in the upper airway, resulting in the escape of SARS-CoV-2 from protective host immune responses.MethodsHere, we investigated the relationship of these 2 respiratory pathogens in 2 distinct cohorts of health care workers with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by systematic screening and patients with moderate to severe disease who presented to the hospital. We assessed the effect of coinfection on host antibody, cellular, and inflammatory responses to the virus.ResultsIn both cohorts, pneumococcal colonization was associated with diminished antiviral immune responses, which primarily affected mucosal IgA levels among individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection and cellular memory responses in infected patients.ConclusionOur findings suggest that S. pneumoniae impair host immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and raise the question of whether pneumococcal carriage also enables immune escape of other respiratory viruses and facilitates reinfection.Trial registrationISRCTN89159899 (FASTER study) and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03502291 (LAIV study).

Longitudinal profile of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19 in a setting from Sub-Saharan Africa: A prospective longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 plays an important role for epidemiological studies, in aiding the diagnosis of COVID-19, and assess vaccine responses. Little is known on dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 serology in African settings. Here, we aimed to characterize the longitudinal antibody response profile to SARS-CoV-2 in Ethiopia. METHODS: In this prospective study, a total of 102 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were enrolled. We obtained 802 plasma samples collected serially. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were determined using four lateral flow immune-assays (LFIAs), and an electrochemiluminescent immunoassay. We determined longitudinal antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 as well as seroconversion dynamics. RESULTS: Serological positivity rate ranged between 12%-91%, depending on timing after symptom onset. There was no difference in positivity rate between severe and non-severe COVID-19 cases. The specificity ranged between 90%-97%. Agreement between different assays ranged between 84%-92%. The estimated positive predictive value (PPV) for IgM or IgG in a scenario with seroprevalence at 5% varies from 33% to 58%. Nonetheless, when the population seroprevalence increases to 25% and 50%, there is a corresponding increases in the estimated PPVs. The estimated negative-predictive value (NPV) in a low seroprevalence scenario (5%) is high (>99%). However, the estimated NPV in a high seroprevalence scenario (50%) for IgM or IgG is reduced significantly to 80% to 85%. Overall, 28/102 (27.5%) seroconverted by one or more assays tested, within a median time of 11 (IQR: 9-15) days post symptom onset. The median seroconversion time among symptomatic cases tended to be shorter when compared to asymptomatic patients [9 (IQR: 6-11) vs. 15 (IQR: 13-21) days; p = 0.002]. Overall, seroconversion reached 100% 5.5 weeks after the onset of symptoms. Notably, of the remaining 74 COVID-19 patients included in the cohort, 64 (62.8%) were positive for antibody at the time of enrollment, and 10 (9.8%) patients failed to mount a detectable antibody response by any of the assays tested during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal assessment of antibody response in African COVID-19 patients revealed heterogeneous responses. This underscores the need for a comprehensive evaluation of seroassays before implementation. Factors associated with failure to seroconvert needs further research.

SARS-CoV-2 viability on sports equipment is limited, and dependent on material composition.

The control of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK has necessitated restrictions on amateur and professional sports due to the perceived infection risk to competitors, via direct person to person transmission, or possibly via the surfaces of sports equipment. The sharing of sports equipment such as tennis balls was therefore banned by some sport's governing bodies. We sought to investigate the potential of sporting equipment as transmission vectors of SARS-CoV-2. Ten different types of sporting equipment, including balls from common sports, were inoculated with 40 µl droplets containing clinically relevant concentrations of live SARS-CoV-2 virus. Materials were then swabbed at time points relevant to sports (1, 5, 15, 30, 90 min). The amount of live SARS-CoV-2 recovered at each time point was enumerated using viral plaque assays, and viral decay and half-life was estimated through fitting linear models to log transformed data from each material. At one minute, SARS-CoV-2 virus was recovered in only seven of the ten types of equipment with the low dose inoculum, one at five minutes and none at 15 min. Retrievable virus dropped significantly for all materials tested using the high dose inoculum with mean recovery of virus falling to 0.74% at 1 min, 0.39% at 15 min and 0.003% at 90 min. Viral recovery, predicted decay, and half-life varied between materials with porous surfaces limiting virus transmission. This study shows that there is an exponential reduction in SARS-CoV-2 recoverable from a range of sports equipment after a short time period, and virus is less transferrable from materials such as a tennis ball, red cricket ball and cricket glove. Given this rapid loss of viral load and the fact that transmission requires a significant inoculum to be transferred from equipment to the mucous membranes of another individual it seems unlikely that sports equipment is a major cause for transmission of SARS-CoV-2. These findings have important policy implications in the context of the pandemic and may promote other infection control measures in sports to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and urge sports equipment manufacturers to identify surfaces that may or may not be likely to retain transferable virus.

Implementation study of SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow tests in men's professional (Premiership) rugby union sports squads in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study evaluated the validity and utility of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 in elite sports. The data on utility, ease of use and application for Ag-RDTs as a new testing format were positive from players and staff. This evaluation was limited by the low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 circulating within the three squads. This study highlights the need for continued service evaluations for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs in elite sport settings.

Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

BACKGROUND: There are an abundance of commercially available lateral flow assays (LFAs) that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Whilst these are usually evaluated by the manufacturer, externally performed diagnostic accuracy studies to assess performance are essential. Herein we present an evaluation of 12 LFAs. METHODS: Sera from 100 SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive participants were recruited through the FASTER study. A total of 105 pre-pandemic sera from participants with other infections were included as negative samples. RESULTS: At presentation sensitivity against RT-PCR ranged from 37.4 to 79% for IgM/IgG, 30.3-74% for IgG, and 21.2-67% for IgM. Sensitivity for IgM/IgG improved ≥ 21 days post symptom onset for 10/12 tests. Specificity ranged from 74.3 to 99.1% for IgM/IgG, 82.9-100% for IgG, and 75.2-98% for IgM. Compared to the EuroImmun IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), sensitivity and specificity ranged from 44.6 to 95.4% and 85.4-100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: There are many LFAs available with varied sensitivity and specificity. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of these tests will be vital as we come to rely more on the antibody status of a person moving forward, and as such manufacturer-independent evaluations are crucial.

Limit of detection in different matrices of 19 commercially available rapid antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic there has been an increase of the use of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT). The performance of Ag-RDT vary greatly between manufacturers and evaluating their analytical limit of detection (LOD) has become high priority. Here we describe a manufacturer-independent evaluation of the LOD of 19 marketed Ag-RDT using live SARS-CoV-2 spiked in different matrices: direct culture supernatant, a dry swab, and a swab in Amies. Additionally, the LOD using dry swab was investigated after 7 days' storage at - 80 °C of the SARS-CoV-2 serial dilutions. An LOD of ≈ 5.0 × 102 pfu/ml (1.0 × 106 genome copies/ml) in culture media is defined as acceptable by the World Health Organization. Fourteen of 19 Ag-RDTs (ActiveXpress, Espline, Excalibur, Innova, Joysbio, Mologic, NowCheck, Orient, PanBio, RespiStrip, Roche, Standard-F, Standard-Q and Sure-Status) exceeded this performance criteria using direct culture supernatant applied to the Ag-RDT. Six Ag-RDT were not compatible with Amies media and a decreased sensitivity of 2 to 20-fold was observed for eleven tests on the stored dilutions at - 80 °C for 7 days. Here, we provide analytical sensitivity data to guide appropriate test and sample type selection for use and for future Ag-RDT evaluations.

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding in the community: a prospective household cohort study (COVID-LIV) in the UK.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is frequently shed in the stool of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The extent of faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 among individuals in the community, and its potential to contribute to spread of disease, is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, observational cohort study among households in Liverpool, UK, participants underwent weekly nasal/throat swabbing to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus, over a 12-week period from enrolment starting July 2020. Participants that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asked to provide a stool sample three and 14 days later. In addition, in October and November 2020, during a period of high community transmission, stool sampling was undertaken to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding among all study participants. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected using Real-Time PCR. RESULTS: A total of 434 participants from 176 households were enrolled. Eighteen participants (4.2%: 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-6.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus on nasal/throat swabs and of these, 3/17 (18%: 95% CI 4-43%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in stool. Two of three participants demonstrated ongoing faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, without gastrointestinal symptoms, after testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. Among 165/434 participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection and who took part in the prevalence study, none had SARS-CoV-2 in stool. There was no demonstrable household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among households containing a participant with faecal shedding. CONCLUSIONS: Faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 occurred among community participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, during a period of high community transmission, faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 was not detected among participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is unlikely that the faecal-oral route plays a significant role in household and community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Prevalence of neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in acute infection and convalescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop neutralising antibodies. We investigated the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how this proportion varies with selected covariates. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how these proportions vary with selected covariates. Three models using the maximum likelihood method assessed these proportions by study group, covariates and individually extracted data (protocol CRD42020208913). A total of 983 reports were identified and 27 were included. The pooled (95%CI) proportion of individuals with neutralising antibodies was 85.3% (83.5-86.9) using the titre cut off >1:20 and 83.9% (82.2-85.6), 70.2% (68.1-72.5) and 54.2% (52.0-56.5) with titres >1:40, >1:80 and >1:160, respectively. These proportions were higher among patients with severe COVID-19 (e.g., titres >1:80, 84.8% [80.0-89.2], >1:160, 74.4% [67.5-79.7]) than those with mild presentation (56.7% [49.9-62.9] and 44.1% [37.3-50.6], respectively) and lowest among asymptomatic infections (28.6% [17.9-39.2] and 10.0% [3.7-20.1], respectively). IgG and neutralising antibody levels correlated poorly. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: 85% of individuals with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection had detectable neutralising antibodies. This proportion varied with disease severity, study setting, time since infection and the method used to measure antibodies.

Self-sampling of capillary blood for SARS-CoV-2 serology.

Serological testing is emerging as a powerful tool to progress our understanding of COVID-19 exposure, transmission and immune response. Large-scale testing is limited by the need for in-person blood collection by staff trained in venepuncture, and the limited sensitivity of lateral flow tests. Capillary blood self-sampling and postage to laboratories for analysis could provide a reliable alternative. Two-hundred and nine matched venous and capillary blood samples were obtained from thirty nine participants and analysed using a COVID-19 IgG ELISA to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Thirty eight out of thirty nine participants were able to self-collect an adequate sample of capillary blood (≥ 50 µl). Using plasma from venous blood collected in lithium heparin as the reference standard, matched capillary blood samples, collected in lithium heparin-treated tubes and on filter paper as dried blood spots, achieved a Cohen's kappa coefficient of > 0.88 (near-perfect agreement, 95% CI 0.738-1.000). Storage of capillary blood at room temperature for up to 7 days post sampling did not affect concordance. Our results indicate that capillary blood self-sampling is a reliable and feasible alternative to venepuncture for serological assessment in COVID-19.

Antibody testing for COVID-19: A report from the National COVID Scientific Advisory Panel.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused >1 million infections during January-March 2020. There is an urgent need for reliable antibody detection approaches to support diagnosis, vaccine development, safe release of individuals from quarantine, and population lock-down exit strategies. We set out to evaluate the performance of ELISA and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices. Methods: We tested plasma for COVID (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SARS-CoV-2) IgM and IgG antibodies by ELISA and using nine different LFIA devices. We used a panel of plasma samples from individuals who have had confirmed COVID infection based on a PCR result (n=40), and pre-pandemic negative control samples banked in the UK prior to December-2019 (n=142). Results: ELISA detected IgM or IgG in 34/40 individuals with a confirmed history of COVID infection (sensitivity 85%, 95%CI 70-94%), vs. 0/50 pre-pandemic controls (specificity 100% [95%CI 93-100%]). IgG levels were detected in 31/31 COVID-positive individuals tested ≥10 days after symptom onset (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 89-100%). IgG titres rose during the 3 weeks post symptom onset and began to fall by 8 weeks, but remained above the detection threshold. Point estimates for the sensitivity of LFIA devices ranged from 55-70% versus RT-PCR and 65-85% versus ELISA, with specificity 95-100% and 93-100% respectively. Within the limits of the study size, the performance of most LFIA devices was similar. Conclusions: Currently available commercial LFIA devices do not perform sufficiently well for individual patient applications. However, ELISA can be calibrated to be specific for detecting and quantifying SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG and is highly sensitive for IgG from 10 days following first symptoms.

Prospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infection, transmission and immunity in a cohort of households in Liverpool City Region, UK (COVID-LIV): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 have caused widespread and catastrophic public health and economic impact, requiring governments to restrict societal activity to reduce the spread of the disease. The role of household transmission in the population spread of SARS-CoV-2, and of host immunity in limiting transmission, is poorly understood. This paper describes a protocol for a prospective observational study of a cohort of households in Liverpool City Region, UK, which addresses the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between household members and how immunological response to the infection changes over time. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Households in the Liverpool City Region, in which members have not previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a nucleic acid amplification test, are followed up for an initial period of 12 weeks. Participants are asked to provide weekly self-throat and nasal swabs and record their activity and presence of symptoms. Incidence of infection and household secondary attack rates of COVID-19 are measured. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 will be investigated against a range of demographic and behavioural variables. Blood and faecal samples are collected at several time points to evaluate immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and prevalence and risk factors for faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approval from the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee; REC Reference: 20/HRA/2297, IRAS Number: 283 464. Results will be disseminated through scientific conferences and peer-reviewed open access publications. A report of the findings will also be shared with participants. The study will quantify the scale and determinants of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, immunological responses before and during the different stages of infection will be analysed, adding to the understanding of the range of immunological response by infection severity.