Search

There is a clear requirement for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 antibody test, both as a complement to existing diagnostic capabilities and for determining community seroprevalence. We therefore evaluated the performance of a variety of antibody testing technologies and their potential use as diagnostic tools. Highly specific in-house ELISAs were developed for the detection of anti-spike (S), -receptor binding domain (RBD) and -nucleocapsid (N) antibodies and used for the cross-comparison of ten commercial serological assays-a chemiluminescence-based platform, two ELISAs and seven colloidal gold lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)-on an identical panel of 110 SARS-CoV-2-positive samples and 50 pre-pandemic negatives. There was a wide variation in the performance of the different platforms, with specificity ranging from 82% to 100%, and overall sensitivity from 60.9% to 87.3%. However, the head-to-head comparison of multiple sero-diagnostic assays on identical sample sets revealed that performance is highly dependent on the time of sampling, with sensitivities of over 95% seen in several tests when assessing samples from more than 20 days post onset of symptoms. Furthermore, these analyses identified clear outlying samples that were negative in all tests, but were later shown to be from individuals with mildest disease presentation. Rigorous comparison of antibody testing platforms will inform the deployment of point-of-care technologies in healthcare settings and their use in the monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 infections., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

An evaluation of a rapid portable gold-nanotechnology measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgA and IgG antibody concentrations against spike 1 (S1), spike 2 (S) and nucleocapsid (N) was conducted using serum samples from 74 patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA on admission to hospital, and 47 historical control patients from March 2019. 59 patients were RNA(+) and 15 were RNA(-). A serum (±) classification was derived for all three antigens and a quantitative serological profile was obtained. Serum(+) was identified in 30% (95% CI 11-48) of initially RNA(-) patients, in 36% (95% CI 17-54) of RNA(+) patients before 10 days, 77% (95% CI 67-87) between 10 and 20 days and 95% (95% CI 86-100) after 21 days. The patient-level diagnostic accuracy relative to RNA(±) after 10 days displayed 88% sensitivity (95% CI 75-95) and 75% specificity (95% CI 22-99), although specificity compared with historical controls was 100% (95%CI 91-100). This study provides robust support for further evaluation and validation of this novel technology in a clinical setting and highlights challenges inherent in assessment of serological tests for an emerging disease such as COVID-19.