ABSTRACT
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lateral flow assays (LFAs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen have been proposed as a complementary option to the more costly and time consuming reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We assessed five commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen detecting LFAs (ASSUT EUROPE (Rome, Italy), Besthree (Taizhou, China), Encode (Zhuhai, China), Fortress (Antrim UK), and Hughes Medical (Buckinghamshire, UK), using samples collected from hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 and compared these results against established RT-PCR assays with the aim of estimating test performance characteristics. We performed a diagnostic accuracy study of the five LFAs on 110 inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 and 75 COVID-19 negative control participants. Assay evaluation was performed using a modified version of each manufacturer's protocol allowing for parallel testing of a single sample on multiple assays. Additional variables were studied including infection acquisition, oxygenation requirements at time of swabbing, and patient outcomes. The 110 patients were 48% (53) female, with mean age 67 years (range 26-100 years), and 77% (85) cases were community onset SARS-CoV-2. Across the five assays, sensitivity ranged from 64 (95% CI 53-73) to 76% (95% CI 65-85); Fortress performed best with sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 65-85). Specificity was high across all assays with 4/5 LFAs achieving 100%. LFA sensitivity was not dependant on RT-PCR cycle thresholds. SARS-CoV-2 antigen detecting LFAs may complement RT-PCR testing to facilitate early diagnosis and provide community testing strategies for identification of patients with COVID-19, however we find suboptimal test performance characteristics across a range of commercially available manufacturers, below WHO and MHRA pre-set sensitivity performance thresholds. With such variation in sensitivity between LFAs and PCR testing and between assay brands, we advise caution in the deployment of LFAs outside of environments with clinical oversight.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Immunologic Tests , Middle Aged , Nucleocapsid , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Introduction: Immunoassays targeting different SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies are employed for seroprevalence studies. The degree of variability between immunoassays targeting anti-nucleocapsid (anti-NP;the majority) vs the potentially neutralising anti-spike antibodies (including anti-receptor-binding domain;anti-RBD), particularly in mild or asymptomatic disease, remains unclear. Aims We aimed to explore variability in anti-NP and anti-RBD antibody detectability following mild symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and analyse antibody response for correlation with symptomatology. Methods A multicentre prospective cross-sectional study was undertaken (April-July 2020). Paired serum samples were tested for anti-NP and anti-RBD IgG antibodies and reactivity expressed as binding ratios (BR). Multivariate linear regression was performed analysing age, sex, time since onset, symptomatology, anti-NP and anti-RBD antibody BR. Results We included 906 adults. Antibody results (793/906;87.5%;95% confidence interval: 85.2-89.6) and BR strongly correlated (p = 0.75). PCR-confirmed cases were more frequently identified by anti-RBD (129/130) than anti-NP (123/130). Anti-RBD testing identified 83 of 325 (25.5%) cases otherwise reported as negative for anti-NP. Anti-NP presence (+1.75/unit increase;p < 0.001), fever ( 38..C;+1.81;p < 0.001) or anosmia (+1.91;p < 0.001) were significantly associated with increased anti-RBD BR. Age (p = 0.85), sex (p = 0.28) and cough (p = 0.35) were not. When time since symptom onset was considered, we did not observe a significant change in anti-RBD BR (p = 0.95) but did note decreasing anti-NP BR (p < 0.001). Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 anti-RBD IgG showed significant correlation with anti-NP IgG for absolute seroconversion and BR. Higher BR were seen in symptomatic individuals, particularly those with fever. Inter-assay variability (12.5%) was evident and raises considerations for optimising seroprevalence testing strategies/studies.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To understand SARS-Co-V-2 infection and transmission in UK nursing homes in order to develop preventive strategies for protecting the frail elderly residents. METHODS: An outbreak investigation involving 394 residents and 70 staff, was carried out in 4 nursing homes affected by COVID-19 outbreaks in central London. Two point-prevalence surveys were performed one week apart where residents underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing and had relevant symptoms documented. Asymptomatic staff from three of the four homes were also offered SARS-CoV-2 testing. RESULTS: Overall, 26% (95% CI 22-31) of residents died over the two-month period. All-cause mortality increased by 203% (95% CI 70-336) compared with previous years. Systematic testing identified 40% (95% CI 35-46) of residents as positive for SARS-CoV-2, and of these 43% (95% CI 34-52) were asymptomatic and 18% (95% CI 11-24) had only atypical symptoms; 4% (95% CI -1 to 9) of asymptomatic staff also tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in four UK nursing homes was associated with very high infection and mortality rates. Many residents developed either atypical or had no discernible symptoms. A number of asymptomatic staff members also tested positive, suggesting a role for regular screening of both residents and staff in mitigating future outbreaks.