Diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunoassays for COVID-19 antibodies in Peruvian population
Calderon-Flores, R. A.; Caceres-Cardenas, G.; Ali, K.; De Vos, M.; Emperador, D.; Caceres, T.; Eca, A.; Villa, L.; Albertini, A.; Sacks, J. A.; Ugarte-Gil, C.
Show abstract
BackgroundSerological assays have been used in seroprevalence studies to inform the dynamics of COVID-19. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests are a very practical technology to use for this objective; however, one of their challenges may be variable diagnostic performance. Given the numerous available LFIA tests, evaluation of their accuracy is critical before real-world implementation. MethodsWe performed a retrospective diagnostic evaluation study to independently determine the diagnostic accuracy of 4 different antibody-detection LFIA tests. The sample panel was comprised of specimens collected and stored in biobanks; specifically, specimens that were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 collected at various times throughout the COVID-19 disease course and those that were collected before the pandemic, during 2018 or earlier, from individuals with upper respiratory symptoms but were negative for tuberculosis. Clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) was analyzed overall, and subset across individual antibody isotypes, and days from symptoms onset. ResultsA very high specificity (98% - 100%) was found for all four tests. Overall sensitivity was variable, ranging from 29% [95% CI: 21%-39%] to 64% [95% CI: 54%-73%]. When considering detection of IgM only, the highest sensitivity was 42% [95% CI: 32%-52%], compared to 57% [95% CI: 47%-66%] for IgG only. When the analysis was restricted to at least 15 days since symptom onset, across any isotype, the sensitivity reached 90% for all four brands. ConclusionAll four LFIA tests proved effective for identifying COVID-19 antibodies when two conditions were met: 1) at least 15 days have elapsed since symptom onset and 2) a sample is considered positive when either IgM or IgG is present. With these considerations, the use of this assays could help in seroprevalence studies or further exploration of its potential uses.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Specificity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody-detection assays against S and N protein among pre-COVID-19 sera from patients with protozoan and helminth parasitic infections 96%
- A systematic evaluation of IgM and IgG antibody assay accuracy in diagnosing acute Zika Virus infection in Brazil; lessons relevant to emerging infections 96%
- Performance of three SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, three rapid lateral flow tests and a novel bead-based affinity surrogate test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human serum 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance estimation of two in-house ELISA assays for COVID-19 surveillance through the combined detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM, and IgG immunoglobulin isotypes 97%
- Laboratory and field evaluation of the STANDARD Q and Panbio™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid test in Namibia using nasopharyngeal samples 96%
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of commercial qPCR kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pooled samples 96%
- Evaluation of VIDAS® diagnostic assay prototypes detecting dengue virus NS1 antigen and anti-dengue virus IgM and IgG antibodies 95%
- Evaluation and modelling of the performance of an automated SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay according to sample type, target population and epidemic trends 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Colombo Municipality region, Sri Lanka 94%
- Diagnostics for detection and surveillance of priority epidemic-prone diseases in Africa: an assessment of testing capacity and laboratory strengthening needs 93%
- SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence and Risk Factors among Convalescents in Sichuan Province, China: a retrospective cohort study 92%
"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.