TY - JOUR
T1 - Antibody testing for COVID-19
T2 - A report from the National COVID Scientific Advisory Panel
AU - National COVID Testing Scientific Advisory Panel
AU - Adams, Emily R
AU - Ainsworth, Mark
AU - Anand, Rekha
AU - Andersson, Monique I
AU - Auckland, Kathryn
AU - Baillie, J Kenneth
AU - Barnes, Eleanor
AU - Beer, Sally
AU - Bell, John I
AU - Berry, Tamsin
AU - Bibi, Sagida
AU - Carroll, Miles
AU - Chinnakannan, Senthil K
AU - Clutterbuck, Elizabeth
AU - Cornall, Richard J
AU - Crook, Derrick W
AU - de Silva, Thushan
AU - Dejnirattisai, Wanwisa
AU - Dingle, Kate E
AU - Dold, Christina
AU - Espinosa, Alexis
AU - Eyre, David W
AU - Farmer, Helen
AU - Fernandez Mendoza, Maria
AU - Georgiou, Dominique
AU - Hoosdally, Sarah J
AU - Hunter, Alastair
AU - Jefferey, Katie
AU - Kelly, Dominic F
AU - Klenerman, Paul
AU - Knight, Julian
AU - Knowles, Clarice
AU - Kwok, Andrew J
AU - Leuschner, Ullrich
AU - Levin, Robert
AU - Liu, Chang
AU - López-Camacho, César
AU - Martinez, Jose
AU - Matthews, Philippa C
AU - McGivern, Hannah
AU - Mentzer, Alexander J
AU - Milton, Jonathan
AU - Mongkolsapaya, Juthathip
AU - Moore, Shona C
AU - Oliveira, Marta S
AU - Pereira, Fiona
AU - Perez, Elena
AU - Peto, Timothy
AU - Roberts, David J
AU - Smith, Elliot Nathan
N1 - Copyright: © 2020 Adams ER et al.
PY - 2020/6/11
Y1 - 2020/6/11
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - COVID-19
KW - SARS-CoV-2
KW - serology
KW - IgG
KW - IgM
KW - antibodies
KW - immunoassay
KW - ELISA
KW - lateral flow
KW - exposure
KW - epidemiology
U2 - 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15927.1
DO - 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15927.1
M3 - Article
C2 - 33748431
SN - 2398-502X
VL - 5
SP - 139
JO - Wellcome Open Research
JF - Wellcome Open Research
ER -