Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Antibody testing for COVID-19: A report from the National COVID Scientific Advisory Panel.


ABSTRACT: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused >1 million infections during January-March 2020. There is an urgent need for reliable antibody detection approaches to support diagnosis, vaccine development, safe release of individuals from quarantine, and population lock-down exit strategies. We set out to evaluate the performance of ELISA and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices. Methods: We tested plasma for COVID (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SARS-CoV-2) IgM and IgG antibodies by ELISA and using nine different LFIA devices. We used a panel of plasma samples from individuals who have had confirmed COVID infection based on a PCR result (n=40), and pre-pandemic negative control samples banked in the UK prior to December-2019 (n=142). Results: ELISA detected IgM or IgG in 34/40 individuals with a confirmed history of COVID infection (sensitivity 85%, 95%CI 70-94%), vs. 0/50 pre-pandemic controls (specificity 100% [95%CI 93-100%]). IgG levels were detected in 31/31 COVID-positive individuals tested ≥10 days after symptom onset (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 89-100%). IgG titres rose during the 3 weeks post symptom onset and began to fall by 8 weeks, but remained above the detection threshold. Point estimates for the sensitivity of LFIA devices ranged from 55-70% versus RT-PCR and 65-85% versus ELISA, with specificity 95-100% and 93-100% respectively. Within the limits of the study size, the performance of most LFIA devices was similar. Conclusions: Currently available commercial LFIA devices do not perform sufficiently well for individual patient applications. However, ELISA can be calibrated to be specific for detecting and quantifying SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG and is highly sensitive for IgG from 10 days following first symptoms.

SUBMITTER: Adams ER 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7941096 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Antibody testing for COVID-19: A report from the National COVID Scientific Advisory Panel.

Adams Emily R ER   Ainsworth Mark M   Anand Rekha R   Andersson Monique I MI   Auckland Kathryn K   Baillie J Kenneth JK   Barnes Eleanor E   Beer Sally S   Bell John I JI   Berry Tamsin T   Bibi Sagida S   Carroll Miles M   Chinnakannan Senthil K SK   Clutterbuck Elizabeth E   Cornall Richard J RJ   Crook Derrick W DW   de Silva Thushan T   Dejnirattisai Wanwisa W   Dingle Kate E KE   Dold Christina C   Espinosa Alexis A   Eyre David W DW   Farmer Helen H   Fernandez Mendoza Maria M   Georgiou Dominique D   Hoosdally Sarah J SJ   Hunter Alastair A   Jefferey Katie K   Kelly Dominic F DF   Klenerman Paul P   Knight Julian J   Knowles Clarice C   Kwok Andrew J AJ   Leuschner Ullrich U   Levin Robert R   Liu Chang C   López-Camacho César C   Martinez Jose J   Matthews Philippa C PC   McGivern Hannah H   Mentzer Alexander J AJ   Milton Jonathan J   Mongkolsapaya Juthathip J   Moore Shona C SC   Oliveira Marta S MS   Pereira Fiona F   Perez Elena E   Peto Timothy T   Ploeg Rutger J RJ   Pollard Andrew A   Prince Tessa T   Roberts David J DJ   Rudkin Justine K JK   Sanchez Veronica V   Screaton Gavin R GR   Semple Malcolm G MG   Slon-Campos Jose J   Skelly Donal T DT   Smith Elliot Nathan EN   Sobrinodiaz Alberto A   Staves Julie J   Stuart David I DI   Supasa Piyada P   Surik Tomas T   Thraves Hannah H   Tsang Pat P   Turtle Lance L   Walker A Sarah AS   Wang Beibei B   Washington Charlotte C   Watkins Nicholas N   Whitehouse James J  

Wellcome open research 20200611


<b>Background:</b> The COVID-19 pandemic caused >1 million infections during January-March 2020. There is an urgent need for reliable antibody detection approaches to support diagnosis, vaccine development, safe release of individuals from quarantine, and population lock-down exit strategies. We set out to evaluate the performance of ELISA and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices. <b>Methods:</b> We tested plasma for COVID (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SARS-CoV-2) IgM and  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC11110975 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7184973 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7836888 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9789727 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7375789 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10022193 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7197526 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8386136 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8462184 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8653399 | biostudies-literature