Early identification of high-risk individuals for combination monoclonal antibody therapy is feasible by SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody specific lateral flow assay

BackgroundCombination monoclonal antibody therapy has recently been approved for prevention and treatment of severe COVID-19 infection in the UK. Available data suggests benefit is limited to those yet to mount an effective immune response from natural infection or vaccination, but concern exists around ability to make timely assessment of immune status of community-based patients.MethodsHealthcare workers were invited to undergo paired laboratory-based and rapid point-of- care (POC) lateral flow anti-spike antibody testing. Three commercial POC tests were selected to represent currently available testing methods: a split IgM/IgG anti-spike antibody test, an anti-receptor binding domain total antibody test and an anti-spike neutralisation assay. Qualitative POC colourmetric band intensities were independently scored and correlated with quantitative IgG neutralising antibody titres (Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Quant II chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay [CMIA]). CMIA titres were correlated with the World Health Organisation international reference standard for neutralising antibody. Negative controls were carried out using 2018 pre-pandemic sera and post-pandemic individuals with negative CMIA results (target population).Results190 individuals (median 40 years, IQR 29-49;76.2% female) underwent paired testing, with a further 40 pre-pandemic sera tested. Assays demonstrated high performance characteristics: split IgM/IgG assay sensitivity 96.2% (95%CI 92.4.5–98.5), specificity 100.0% (95%CI 91.8–100.0);anti-receptor binding domain total antibody assay sensitivity 100.0% (95%CI 95.5–100.0), specificity 100.0% (95%CI 69.2–100.0). The neutralising antibody assay had a specificity of 97.0% (95%CI 84.2–99.9%) and strongly correlated with neutralising antibody titre (p<0.001). Probability for matched paired results was significant (McNemar’s p<0.001) while band intensity correlated strongly with neutralising titres (p<0.0001). Positive and negative predictive values for total antibody and neutralising assays were both >99%.ConclusionsPOC assays were found to be reliable predictors of both antibody status and broadly of neutralising antibody titre. Anti-S POC assays have potential to act as suitable alternatives for rapid identification of community patient immune status at presentation.

Early identification of high-risk individuals for monoclonal antibody therapy and prophylaxis is feasible by SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody specific lateral flow assay.

Monoclonal antibody therapy has been approved for prophylaxis and treatment of severe COVID-19 infection. Greatest benefit appears limited to those yet to mount an effective immune response from natural infection or vaccination, but concern exists around ability to make timely assessment of immune status of community-based patients where laboratory-based serodiagnostics predominate. Participants were invited to undergo paired laboratory-based (Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Quant II chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay) and lateral flow assays (LFA; a split SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG and total antibody test) able to detect SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibodies. LFA band strength was compared with CMIA titer by log-linear regression. Two hundred individuals (median age 43.5 years, IQR 30-59; 60.5% female) underwent testing, with a further 100 control sera tested. Both LFA band strengths correlated strongly with CMIA antibody titers (P < 0.001). LFAs have the potential to assist in early identification of seronegative patients who may demonstrate the greatest benefit from monoclonal antibody treatment.

SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for possible use in national covid-19 seroprevalence surveys (React 2): diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of new lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) suitable for use in a national coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) seroprevalence programme (real time assessment of community transmission 2-React 2). DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Laboratory analyses were performed in the United Kingdom at Imperial College, London and university facilities in London. Research clinics for finger prick sampling were run in two affiliated NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Sensitivity analyses were performed on sera stored from 320 previous participants in the React 2 programme with confirmed previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Specificity analyses were performed on 1000 prepandemic serum samples. 100 new participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection attended study clinics for finger prick testing. INTERVENTIONS: Laboratory sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed for seven LFIAs on a minimum of 200 serum samples from participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 500 prepandemic serum samples, respectively. Three LFIAs were found to have a laboratory sensitivity superior to the finger prick sensitivity of the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence studies (84%). These LFIAs were then further evaluated through finger prick testing on participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: two LFIAs (Surescreen, Panbio) were evaluated in clinics in June-July 2020 and the third LFIA (AbC-19) in September 2020. A spike protein enzyme linked immunoassay and hybrid double antigen binding assay were used as laboratory reference standards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The accuracy of LFIAs in detecting immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared with two reference standards. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of seven new LFIAs that were analysed using sera varied from 69% to 100%, and from 98.6% to 100%, respectively (compared with the two reference standards). Sensitivity on finger prick testing was 77% (95% confidence interval 61.4% to 88.2%) for Panbio, 86% (72.7% to 94.8%) for Surescreen, and 69% (53.8% to 81.3%) for AbC-19 compared with the reference standards. Sensitivity for sera from matched clinical samples performed on AbC-19 was significantly higher with serum than finger prick at 92% (80.0% to 97.7%, P=0.01). Antibody titres varied considerably among cohorts. The numbers of positive samples identified by finger prick in the lowest antibody titre quarter varied among LFIAs. CONCLUSIONS: One new LFIA was identified with clinical performance suitable for potential inclusion in seroprevalence studies. However, none of the LFIAs tested had clearly superior performance to the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence surveys, and none showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be considered for routine clinical use.

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for use in a national COVID-19 seroprevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Accurate antibody tests are essential to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver testing at scale. However, reported performance varies, and sensitivity analyses have generally been conducted on serum from hospitalised patients. For use in community testing, evaluation of finger-prick self-tests, in non-hospitalised individuals, is required. METHODS: Sensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR and were ≥21 days from symptom onset. In phase I, we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to (1) PCR-confirmed infection and (2) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two 'in-house' ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 prepandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum. FINDINGS: 95% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.3%) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8 out of 11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21% to 92% versus PCR-confirmed cases and from 22% to 96% versus composite ELISA positives. Concordance between finger-prick and serum testing was at best moderate (kappa 0.56) and, at worst, slight (kappa 0.13). All LFIAs had high specificity (97.2%-99.8%). INTERPRETATION: LFIA sensitivity and sample concordance is variable, highlighting the importance of evaluations in setting of intended use. This rigorous approach to LFIA evaluation identified a test with high specificity (98.6% (95%CI 97.1% to 99.4%)), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with finger prick (95% CI 70.5% to 93.5%)) and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.

Point-of-care serological assays for delayed SARS-CoV-2 case identification among health-care workers in the UK: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health-care workers constitute a high-risk population for acquisition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Capacity for acute diagnosis via PCR testing was limited for individuals with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and a substantial proportion of health-care workers with suspected infection were not tested. We aimed to investigate the performance of point-of-care and laboratory serology assays and their utility in late case identification, and to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. METHODS: We did a prospective multicentre cohort study between April 8 and June 12, 2020, in two phases. Symptomatic health-care workers with mild to moderate symptoms were eligible to participate 14 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms, as per the Public Health England (PHE) case definition. Health-care workers were recruited to the asymptomatic cohort if they had not developed PHE-defined COVID-19 symptoms since Dec 1, 2019. In phase 1, two point-of-care lateral flow serological assays, the Onsite CTK Biotech COVID-19 split IgG/IgM Rapid Test (CTK Bitotech, Poway, CA, USA) and the Encode SARS-CoV-2 split IgM/IgG One Step Rapid Test Device (Zhuhai Encode Medical Engineering, Zhuhai, China), were evaluated for performance against a laboratory immunoassay (EDI Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 IgG ELISA kit [Epitope Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA]) in 300 samples from health-care workers and 100 pre-COVID-19 negative control samples. In phase 2 (n=6440), serosurveillance was done among 1299 (93·4%) of 1391 health-care workers reporting symptoms, and in a subset of asymptomatic health-care workers (405 [8·0%] of 5049). FINDINGS: There was variation in test performance between the lateral flow serological assays; however, the Encode assay displayed reasonable IgG sensitivity (127 of 136; 93·4% [95% CI 87·8-96·9]) and specificity (99 of 100; 99·0% [94·6-100·0]) among PCR-proven cases and good agreement (282 of 300; 94·0% [91·3-96·7]) with the laboratory immunoassay. By contrast, the Onsite assay had reduced sensitivity (120 of 136; 88·2% [95% CI 81·6-93·1]) and specificity (94 of 100; 94·0% [87·4-97·8]) and agreement (254 of 300; 84·7% [80·6-88·7]). Five (7%) of 70 PCR-positive cases were negative across all assays. Late changes in lateral flow serological assay bands were recorded in 74 (9·3%) of 800 cassettes (35 [8·8%] of 400 Encode assays; 39 [9·8%] of 400 Onsite assays), but only seven (all Onsite assays) of these changes were concordant with the laboratory immunoassay. In phase 2, seroprevalence among the workforce was estimated to be 10·6% (95% CI 7·6-13·6) in asymptomatic health-care workers and 44·7% (42·0-47·4) in symptomatic health-care workers. Seroprevalence across the entire workforce was estimated at 18·0% (95% CI 17·0-18·9). INTERPRETATION: Although a good positive predictive value was observed with both lateral flow serological assays and ELISA, this agreement only occurred if the pre-test probability was modified by a strict clinical case definition. Late development of lateral flow serological assay bands would preclude postal strategies and potentially home testing. Identification of false-negative results among health-care workers across all assays suggest caution in interpretation of IgG results at this stage; for now, testing is perhaps best delivered in a clinical setting, supported by government advice about physical distancing. FUNDING: None.