Evaluating the performance characteristics of five lateral flow assays for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lateral flow assays (LFAs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen have been proposed as a complementary option to the more costly and time consuming reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We assessed five commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen detecting LFAs (ASSUT EUROPE (Rome, Italy), Besthree (Taizhou, China), Encode (Zhuhai, China), Fortress (Antrim UK), and Hughes Medical (Buckinghamshire, UK), using samples collected from hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 and compared these results against established RT-PCR assays with the aim of estimating test performance characteristics. We performed a diagnostic accuracy study of the five LFAs on 110 inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 and 75 COVID-19 negative control participants. Assay evaluation was performed using a modified version of each manufacturer's protocol allowing for parallel testing of a single sample on multiple assays. Additional variables were studied including infection acquisition, oxygenation requirements at time of swabbing, and patient outcomes. The 110 patients were 48% (53) female, with mean age 67 years (range 26-100 years), and 77% (85) cases were community onset SARS-CoV-2. Across the five assays, sensitivity ranged from 64 (95% CI 53-73) to 76% (95% CI 65-85); Fortress performed best with sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 65-85). Specificity was high across all assays with 4/5 LFAs achieving 100%. LFA sensitivity was not dependant on RT-PCR cycle thresholds. SARS-CoV-2 antigen detecting LFAs may complement RT-PCR testing to facilitate early diagnosis and provide community testing strategies for identification of patients with COVID-19, however we find suboptimal test performance characteristics across a range of commercially available manufacturers, below WHO and MHRA pre-set sensitivity performance thresholds. With such variation in sensitivity between LFAs and PCR testing and between assay brands, we advise caution in the deployment of LFAs outside of environments with clinical oversight.

Is the Host Viral Response and the Immunogenicity of Vaccines Altered in Pregnancy?

The intricacy of the maternal immune system arises from its ability to prevent a maternal immune response against a semi-allogenic fetus, while protecting the mother against harmful pathogens. However, these immunological adaptations may also make pregnant women vulnerable to developing adverse complications from respiratory viral infections. While the influenza and SARS pandemics support this theory, there is less certainty regarding the clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy. In the current COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine development is key to public preventative strategies. Whilst most viral vaccines are able to induce a seroprotective antibody response, in some high-risk individuals this may not correlate with clinical protection. Some studies have shown that factors such as age, gender, and chronic illnesses can reduce their effectiveness and in this review, we discuss how pregnancy may affect the efficacy and immunogenicity of vaccines. We present literature to support the hypothesis that pregnant women are more susceptible to respiratory viral infections and may not respond to vaccines as effectively. In particular, we focus on the clinical implications of important respiratory viral infections such as influenza during pregnancy, and the pregnancy induced alterations in important leukocytes such as TFH, cTFH and B cells, which play an important role in generating long-lasting and high-affinity antibodies. Finally, we review how this may affect the efficacy of vaccines against influenza in pregnancy and highlight areas that require further research.