Validity of Self-testing at Home With Rapid Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Detection by Lateral Flow Immunoassay. (1st August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Atchison, Christina J; Moshe, Maya; Brown, Jonathan C; Whitaker, Matthew; Wong, Nathan C K; Bharath, Anil A; McKendry, Rachel A; Darzi, Ara; Ashby, Deborah; Donnelly, Christl A; Riley, Steven; Elliott, Paul; Barclay, Wendy S; Cooke, Graham S; Ward, Helen
• Is Part Of: Clinical infectious diseases. Volume 76:Number 4(2023)
• Page Start: 658
• Page End: 666
• Publication Date: 2022-08-01
• Subjects: SARS-CoV-2 -- COVID-19 -- lateral flow immunoassay -- home-testing -- antibodies; Communicable diseases -- Periodicals; 616.905
• DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac629
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1058-4838

Abstract

Abstract: Background: We explore severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) performance under field conditions compared to laboratory-based electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) and live virus neutralization. Methods: In July 2021, 3758 participants performed, at home, a self-administered Fortress LFIA on finger-prick blood, reported and submitted a photograph of the result, and provided a self-collected capillary blood sample for assessment of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ECLIA. We compared the self-reported LFIA result to the quantitative ECLIA and checked the reading of the LFIA result with an automated image analysis (ALFA). In a subsample of 250 participants, we compared the results to live virus neutralization. Results: Almost all participants (3593/3758, 95.6%) had been vaccinated or reported prior infection. Overall, 2777/3758 (73.9%) were positive on self-reported LFIA, 2811/3457 (81.3%) positive by LFIA when ALFA-reported, and 3622/3758 (96.4%) positive on ECLIA (using the manufacturer reference standard threshold for positivity of 0.8 U mL –1 ). Live virus neutralization was detected in 169 of 250 randomly selected samples (67.6%); 133/169 were positive with self-reported LFIA (sensitivity 78.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 71.8, 84.6), 142/155 (91.6%; 95% CI: 86.1, 95.5) with ALFA, and 169 (100%; 95% CI: 97.8, 100.0) with ECLIA. There were 81 samples with no detectable virus neutralization; 47/81 were negative with self-reported LFIA (specificity 58.0%; 95% CI: 46.5, 68.9), 34/75 (45.3%; 95% CI: 33.8, 57.3) with ALFA, and 0/81 (0%; 95% CI: 0, 4.5) with ECLIA. Conclusions: Self-administered LFIA is less sensitive than a quantitative antibody test, but the positivity in LFIA correlates better than the quantitative ECLIA with virus neutralization. Abstract : We found positivity on lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) correlates better than quantitative electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) with virus neutralization. Calibrated to the appropriate positivity threshold for protection from infection or disease, rapid antibody home-testing by LFIA may prove useful in ongoing population surveillance.