Association of results of four lateral flow antibody tests with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection (preprint)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine coverage remains incomplete, being only 15% in low income countries. Rapid point of care tests predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility in the unvaccinated might assist in risk management and vaccine prioritisation. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study in 2,826 participants working in hospitals and Fire and Police services in England, UK, during the pandemic (ISRCTN5660922). Plasma taken at recruitment in June 2020 was tested using four lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices and two laboratory immunoassays detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (UK Rapid Test Consortium's AbC-19TM Rapid Test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Test Cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test; Roche N and EUROIMMUN S laboratory assays). We monitored participants for microbiologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection for 200 days. We estimated associations between test results at baseline and subsequent infection, using Poisson regression models adjusted for baseline demographic risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Findings: Positive IgG results on each of the four LFIAs were associated with lower rates of subsequent infection: adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) 0.00 (95% confidence interval 0.00-0.01), 0.03 (0.02-0.05), 0.07 (0.05-0.10), and 0.09 (0.07-0.12) respectively. The protective association was strongest for AbC-19 and SureScreen. The aIRR for the laboratory Roche N antibody assay at the manufacturer-recommended threshold was similar to those of the two best performing LFIAs at 0.03 (0.01-0.10). Interpretation: Lateral flow devices measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgG predicted disease risk in unvaccinated individuals over 200 day follow-up. The association of some LFIAs with subsequent infection was similar to laboratory immunoassays.

Accuracy of four lateral flow immunoassays for anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a head-to-head comparative study (preprint)

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are used for population surveillance and might have a future role in individual risk assessment. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver results rapidly and at scale, but have widely varying accuracy. MethodsIn a laboratory setting, we performed head-to-head comparisons of four LFIAs: the Rapid Test Consortiums AbC-19 Rapid Test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Test Cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test. We analysed blood samples from 2,847 key workers and 1,995 pre-pandemic blood donors with all four devices. FindingsWe observed a clear trade-off between sensitivity and specificity: the IgG band of the SureScreen device and the AbC-19 device had higher specificities but OrientGene and Biomerica higher sensitivities. Based on analysis of pre-pandemic samples, SureScreen IgG band had the highest specificity (98.9%, 95% confidence interval 98.3 to 99.3%), which translated to the highest positive predictive value across any pre-test probability: for example, 95.1% (95%CI 92.6, 96.8%) at 20% pre-test probability. All four devices showed higher sensitivity at higher antibody concentrations ("spectrum effects"), but the extent of this varied by device. InterpretationThe estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be used to adjust for test error rates when using these devices to estimate the prevalence of antibody. If tests were used to determine whether an individual has SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, in an example scenario in which 20% of individuals have antibodies we estimate around 5% of positive results on the most specific device would be false positives. FundingPublic Health England. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched for evidence on the accuracy of the four devices compared in this study: OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Test Cassette, Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test and the UK Rapid Test Consortiums AbC-19 Rapid Test. We searched Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily), PubMed, MedRxiv/BioRxiv and Google Scholar from January 2020 to 16th January 2021. Search terms included device names AND ((SARS-CoV-2) OR (covid)). Of 303 records assessed, data were extracted from 24 studies: 18 reporting on the accuracy of the OrientGene device, 7 SureScreen, 2 AbC-19 and 1 Biomerica. Only three studies compared the accuracy of two or more of the four devices. With the exception of our previous report on the accuracy of the AbC-19 device, which the current manuscript builds upon, sample size ranged from 7 to 684. For details, see Supplementary Materials. The largest study compared OrientGene, SureScreen and Biomerica. SureScreen was estimated to have the highest specificity (99.8%, 95% CI 98.9 to 100%) and OrientGene the highest sensitivity (92.6%), but with uncertainty about the latter result due to small sample sizes. The other two comparative studies were small (n = 65, n = 67) and therefore provide very uncertain results. We previously observed spectrum effects for the AbC-19 device, such that sensitivity is upwardly biased if estimated only from PCR-confirmed cases. The vast majority of previous studies estimated sensitivity in this way. Added value of this studyWe performed a large scale (n = 4,842), head-to-head laboratory-based evaluation and comparison of four lateral flow devices, which were selected for evaluation by the UK Department of Health and Social Cares New Tests Advisory Group, on the basis of a survey of test and performance data available. We evaluated the performance of diagnosis based on both IgG and IgM bands, and the IgG band alone. We found a clear trade-off between sensitivity and specificity across devices, with the SureScreen and AbC-19 devices being more specific and OrientGene and Biomerica more sensitive. Based on analysis of 1,995 pre-pandemic blood samples, we are 99% confident that SureScreen (IgG band reading) has the highest specificity of the four devices (98.9%, 95% CI 98.3, 99.3%). We found evidence that all four devices have reduced sensitivity at lower antibody indices, i.e. spectrum effects. However, the extent of this varies by device and appears to be less for other devices than for AbC-19. Our estimates of sensitivity and specificity are likely to be higher than would be observed in real use of these devices, as they were based on majority readings of three trained laboratory personnel. Implications of all the available evidenceWhen used in epidemiological studies of antibody prevalence, the estimates of sensitivity and specificity provided in this study can be used to adjust for test errors. Increased precision in error rates will translate to increased precision in seroprevalence estimates. If lateral flow devices were used for individual risk assessment, devices with maximum specificity would be preferable. However, if, for an example, 20% of the tested population had antibodies, we estimate that around 1 in 20 positive results on the most specific device would be incorrect.

SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cell numbers are associated with protection from COVID-19: A prospective cohort study in keyworkers (preprint)

Background: Immune correlates of protection from COVID-19 are important, but incompletely understood. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study in 2,826 participants working in hospitals and Fire and Police services in England, UK during the pandemic (ISRCTN5660922). Of these, 2,672 were unselected volunteers recruited irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test results, and 154 others were recruited separately specifically because they previously tested positive. At recruitment in June 2020, we measured numbers of interferon-y; secreting, SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cells using T-SPOT Discovery SARS-CoV-2 kits (Oxford Immunotec Ltd), and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 proteins using commercial immunoassays. We then described time to microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, stratified by immunological parameters. Results: T cells responsive to the spike (S), nuclear (N) and membrane proteins (M) dominated the responses measured. Using the sum of the spots (responsive cells within each well of 250,000 peripheral blood mononuclear cells) for S, N and M antigens minus the control, the 2,672 unselected participants were divided into those with higher responses (n=669, 25.4%; median 30 spots (IQR 18,54)) and those with low responses (n=2016, 76.7%, median 3 (IQR 1,6)), the cutoff we derived being 12 spots. Of the participants with higher T cell responses, 367 (53%) had detectable antibodies against the N or S proteins. During a median of 118 days follow-up, 20 participants with lower T cell responses developed COVID-19, compared with none in the population with high T cell responses (log-rank test, p=6x10-3). Conclusions: Peripheral blood SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cell numbers are associated with risk of developing COVID-19.

Use of dried blood spot samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection using the Roche Elecsys high throughput immunoassay (preprint)

BackgroundDried blood spot samples (DBS) provide an alternative sample type to venous blood samples for antibody testing. DBS are used by NHS for diagnosing HCV and by PHE for large scale HIV and Hepatitis C serosurveillance; the applicability of DBS based approaches to SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection is uncertain. ObjectiveTo compare antibody detection in dried blood spot eluates using the Roche Elecsys (R) immunoassay (index test) with antibody detection in paired plasma samples, using the same assay (reference test). SettingOne Police and one Fire & Rescue facility in England. Participants195 participants within a larger sample COVID-19 serodiagnostics study of keyworkers, EDSAB-HOME. Outcome MeasuresSensitivity and specificity of DBS (the index test) relative to plasma (the reference test), at an experimental cut-off; quality of DBS sample collected; estimates of relative sensitivity of DBS vs. plasma immunoassay in a larger population. Results18/195 (9.2%) participants tested positive using plasma samples. DBS sample quality varied markedly by phlebotomist, and low sample volume significantly reduced immunoassay signals. Using a cut-off of ten median absolute deviations above the immunoassay result with negative samples, sensitivity and specificity of DBS were 89.0% (95% CI 67.2, 96.9%) and 100.0% (95% CI 97.9, 100%) respectively compared with using plasma. The limit of detection for DBS is about 30 times higher than for plasma. ConclusionDBS use for SARS-CoV-2 serology, though feasible, is insensitive relative to immunoassays on plasma. Sample quality impacts on assay performance. Alternatives, including the collection of capillary blood samples, should be considered for screening programs.

Self assessment overestimates historical COVID-19 disease relative to sensitive serological assays: cross sectional study in UK key workers (preprint)

Objective To measure the association between self-reported signs and symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Design Cross sectional study of three key worker groups. Setting Six acute NHS hospitals and two Police and Fire and Rescue sites in England. Participants Individuals were recruited from three streams: (A) Police and Fire and Rescue services (n=1147), (B) healthcare workers (n=1546) and (C) healthcare workers with previously positive virus detection (n=154). Main outcome measures Detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in plasma. Results 943 of the 2847 participants (33%) reported belief they had had COVID-19, having experienced compatible symptoms (including 152 from Stream C). Among individuals reporting COVID-19 compatible symptoms, 466 (49%) were seronegative on both Nucleoprotein (Roche) and Spike-protein (EUROIMMUN) antibody assays. However, among the 268 individuals with prior positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, of whom 96% reported symptoms with onset a median of 63 days (IQR 52 to 75 days) prior to venesection, Roche and EUROIMMUN assays had 96.6% (95% CI 93.7% to 98.2%) and 93.3% (95% CI 89.6% to 95.7%) sensitivity respectively. Symptomatic but seronegative individuals had significantly earlier symptom onset dates than the symptomatic seropositive individuals, shorter illness duration and a much lower anosmia reporting frequency. Conclusions Self-reported belief of COVID-19 was common among our frontline worker cohort. About half of these individuals were seronegative, despite a high sensitivity of serology in this cohort, at least in individuals with previous positive PCR results. This is compatible with non-COVID-19 respiratory disease during the COVID-19 outbreak having been commonly mistaken for COVID-19 within the key worker cohort studied.