Population (Antibody) Testing for COVID-19-Technical Challenges, Application and Relevance, an English Perspective

Risk factors for recognized and unrecognized SARS-CoV-2 infection: a seroepidemiologic analysis of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study

There are limited data on individual risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection (including unrecognized infection). In this seroepidemiologic substudy of an ongoing prospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults, participants were thoroughly characterized pre-pandemic. The SARS-CoV-2 infection was ascertained by serology. Among 8,719 participants from 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries, 3,009 (35%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2. Characteristics independently associated with seropositivity were younger age (odds ratio, OR; 95% confidence interval, CI, per five-year increase: 0.95; 0.91-0.98) and body mass index >25 kg/m2 (OR, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.01-1.34). Smoking (as compared with never smoking, OR, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.70-0.97) and COVID-19 vaccination (OR, 95% CI: 0.70, 0.60-0.82) were associated with a reduced risk of seropositivity. Among seropositive participants, 83% were unaware of having been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Seropositivity and a lack of awareness of infection were more common in lower-income countries. The COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (including recognized and unrecognized infections). Overweight or obesity is an independent risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infection and lack of infection awareness are more common in lower-income countries.IMPORTANCEIn this large, international study, evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was obtained by testing blood specimens from 8,719 community-dwelling adults from 11 countries. The key findings are that (i) the large majority (83%) of community-dwelling adults from several high-, middle-, and low-income countries with blood test evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection were unaware of this infection-especially in lower-income countries; and (ii) overweight/obesity predisposes to SARS-CoV-2 infection, while COVID-19 vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These observations are not attributable to other individual characteristics, highlighting the importance of the COVID-19 vaccination to prevent not only severe infection but possibly any infection. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which overweight/obesity might increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Validity of Self-testing at Home With Rapid Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Detection by Lateral Flow Immunoassay

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.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody lateral flow assay for antibody prevalence studies following vaccination: a diagnostic accuracy study

Background: Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) are able to achieve affordable, large scale antibody testing and provide rapid results without the support of central laboratories. As part of the development of the REACT programme extensive evaluation of LFIA performance was undertaken with individuals following natural infection. Here we assess the performance of the selected LFIA to detect antibody responses in individuals who have received at least one dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. Methods: This was a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Sampling was carried out at renal outpatient clinic and healthcare worker testing sites at Imperial College London NHS Trust. Two cohorts of patients were recruited; the first was a cohort of 108 renal transplant patients attending clinic following two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the second cohort comprised 40 healthcare workers attending for first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and subsequent follow up. During the participants visit, finger-prick blood samples were analysed on LFIA device, while paired venous sampling was sent for serological assessment of antibodies to the spike protein (anti-S) antibodies. Anti-S IgG was detected using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Quant II CMIA. A total of 186 paired samples were collected. The accuracy of Fortress LFIA in detecting IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared to anti-spike protein detection on Abbott Assay Results: The LFIA had an estimated sensitivity of 92.0% (114/124; 95% confidence interval [CI] 85.7% to 96.1%) and specificity of 93.6% (58/62; 95% CI 84.3% to 98.2%) using the Abbott assay as reference standard (using the threshold for positivity of 7.10 BAU/ml) Conclusions: Fortress LFIA performs well in the detection of antibody responses for intended purpose of population level surveillance but does not meet criteria for individual testing.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody lateral flow assay for antibody prevalence studies following vaccination: a diagnostic accuracy study

Background: Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) are able to achieve affordable, large scale antibody testing and provide rapid results without the support of central laboratories. As part of the development of the REACT programme extensive evaluation of LFIA performance was undertaken with individuals following natural infection. Here we assess the performance of the selected LFIA to detect antibody responses in individuals who have received at least one dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. Methods: This was a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Sampling was carried out at renal outpatient clinic and healthcare worker testing sites at Imperial College London NHS Trust. Two cohorts of patients were recruited; the first was a cohort of 108 renal transplant patients attending clinic following two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, the second cohort comprised 40 healthcare workers attending for first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and subsequent follow up. During the participants visit, finger-prick blood samples were analysed on LFIA device, while paired venous sampling was sent for serological assessment of antibodies to the spike protein (anti-S) antibodies. Anti-S IgG was detected using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Quant II CMIA. A total of 186 paired samples were collected. The accuracy of Fortress LFIA in detecting IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared to anti-spike protein detection on Abbott Assay Results: The LFIA had an estimated sensitivity of 92.0% (114/124; 95% confidence interval [CI] 85.7% to 96.1%) and specificity of 93.6% (58/62; 95% CI 84.3% to 98.2%) using the Abbott assay as reference standard (using the threshold for positivity of 7.10 BAU/ml) Conclusions: Fortress LFIA performs well in the detection of antibody responses for intended purpose of population level surveillance but does not meet criteria for individual testing.