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. Copyright:
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. Copyright:
Authors: Fatima Amanat; Daniel Stadlbauer; Shirin Strohmeier; Thi H O Nguyen; Veronika Chromikova; Meagan McMahon; Kaijun Jiang; Guha Asthagiri Arunkumar; Denise Jurczyszak; Jose Polanco; Maria Bermudez-Gonzalez; Giulio Kleiner; Teresa Aydillo; Lisa Miorin; Daniel S Fierer; Luz Amarilis Lugo; Erna Milunka Kojic; Jonathan Stoever; Sean T H Liu; Charlotte Cunningham-Rundles; Philip L Felgner; Thomas Moran; Adolfo García-Sastre; Daniel Caplivski; Allen C Cheng; Katherine Kedzierska; Olli Vapalahti; Jussi M Hepojoki; Viviana Simon; Florian Krammer Journal: Nat Med Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Kiesha Prem; Yang Liu; Timothy W Russell; Adam J Kucharski; Rosalind M Eggo; Nicholas Davies; Mark Jit; Petra Klepac Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2020-03-25
Authors: Regina Konrad; Ute Eberle; Alexandra Dangel; Bianca Treis; Anja Berger; Katja Bengs; Volker Fingerle; Bernhard Liebl; Nikolaus Ackermann; Andreas Sing Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2020-03
Authors: Antoine Lewin; Steven J Drews; Ryanne Lieshout-Krikke; Christian Erikstrup; Sahar Saeed; Helen Fady; Samra Uzicanin; Brian Custer; Sheila F O'Brien Journal: Vox Sang Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 2.996
Authors: Nicole Stoesser; Philippa C Matthews; David W Eyre; A Sarah Walker; Emma Pritchard; Thomas House; Julie V Robotham; Paul J Birrell; Iain Bell; John I Bell; John N Newton; Jeremy Farrar; Ian Diamond; Ruth Studley; Jodie Hay; Karina-Doris Vihta; Timothy Ea Peto; Koen B Pouwels Journal: Elife Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 8.140