Clinical Evaluation of a COVID-19 Antibody Lateral Flow Assay using Point of Care Samples
Lee, W.; Straube, S.; Sincic, R.; Noble, J. A.; Montoy, J. C.; Kornblith, A. E.; Prakash, A.; Wang, R.; Bainton, R.; Kurien, P.
Show abstract
IntroductionThe ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has spurred the development of numerous point of care (PoC) immunoassays. Assessments of performance of available kits are necessary to determine their clinical utility. Previous studies have mostly performed these assessments in a laboratory setting, which raises concerns of translating findings for PoC use. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of a lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using samples collected at PoC. MethodOne lateral flow immunoassay (Humasis(R) COVID-19 IgG/IgM) was tested. In total, 50 PCR RT-PCR positive and 52 RT-PCR negative samples were collected at PoC. Fifty serum specimens from Dec 2018 to Feb 2019 were used as controls for specificity. Serum samples collected between Dec 2019 to Feb 2020 were used as additional comparators. Clinical data including symptom onset date was collected from patient history and the medical record. ResultsThe overall sensitivity for the kit was 74% (95% CI: 59.7% -85.4%). The sensitivity for IgM and IgG detection >14 days after date of onset was 88% (95% CI: 68.8% -97.5%) and 84% (95% CI: 63.9% - 95.5%), with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94% for IgM (95% CI: 83.5% - 98.8%) and 93% for IgG (95% CI: 81.8% - 97.9%). The overall specificity was 94% (95% CI: 83.5% - 98.8%). The Immunoglobulin specific specificity was 94% for IgM (95% CI: 83.5% - 98.8%) and 98% for IgG (95% CI: 89.4% - 100.0%), with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 88% for IgM (95% CI: 68.8% - 97.5%) and 95% for IgG (95% CI: 77.2% - 99.9%) respectively for samples collected from patients >14 days after date of onset. Specimen collected during early phase of COVID-19 pandemic (Dec 2019 to Feb 2020) showed 11.8% antibody positivity, and 11.3% of PCR-negative patients demonstrated antibody positivity. DiscussionHumasis(R) COVID-19 IgG/IgM LFA demonstrates greater than 90% PPV and NPV for samples collected 14 days after the onset of symptoms using samples collected at PoC. While not practical for the diagnosis of acute infection, the use of the lateral flow assays with high specificity may have utility for determining seroprevalence or seroconversion in longitudinal studies.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance and Implementation Evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test in a High-throughput Drive-through Community Testing Site in Massachusetts 97%
- A multicenter study to assess the performance of the point-of-care RT-PCR Cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B nucleic acid test for use on the Cobas Liat system in comparison with centralized assays across healthcare facilities in the United States 97%
- Comparison of the Accula SARS-CoV-2 Test with a Laboratory-Developed Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Clinical Nasopharyngeal Specimens 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of the Cue COVID-19 Molecular Test for Point of Care: Insights from a multi-site clinic service model 96%
- Evaluation of the INDICAID™ COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test in symptomatic populations and asymptomatic community testing 96%
- Clinical evaluation of BD Veritor™ SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A+B Assay for point-of-care (POC) System 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 97%
- Diagnostic accuracy of two commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-detecting rapid tests at the point of care in community-based testing centers 97%
- Assessing the performance of a serological point-of-care test in measuring detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Assay for detection of IgA and IgG antibodies 96%
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 96%
- Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type. 96%
- Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of Four Lateral Flow Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies 94%
- Diagnostic performance of multiplex lateral flow tests in ambulatory patients with acute respiratory illness 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.