Department of Biochemistry, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Western General Hospital, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, Scotland.
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 31;17(3):e0266086. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266086. eCollection 2022.
SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests have been marketed to diagnose previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and as a test of immune status. There is a lack of evidence on the performance and clinical utility of these tests. We aimed to carry out an evaluation of 14 point of care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Serum from participants with previous RT-PCR (real-time polymerase chain reaction) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pre-pandemic serum controls were used to determine specificity and sensitivity of each POC device. Changes in sensitivity with increasing time from infection were determined on a cohort of study participants. Corresponding neutralising antibody status was measured to establish whether the detection of antibodies by the POC device correlated with immune status. Paired capillary and serum samples were collected to ascertain whether POC devices performed comparably on capillary samples. Sensitivity and specificity varied between the POC devices and in general did not meet the manufacturers' reported performance characteristics, which signifies the importance of independent evaluation of these tests. The sensitivity peaked at ≥20 days following onset of symptoms, however sensitivity of 3 of the POC devices evaluated at extended time points showed that sensitivity declined with time. This was particularly marked at >140 days post infection. This is relevant if the tests are to be used for sero-prevalence studies. Neutralising antibody data showed that positive antibody results on POC devices did not necessarily confer high neutralising antibody titres, and that these POC devices cannot be used to determine immune status to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Comparison of paired serum and capillary results showed that there was a decline in sensitivity using capillary blood. This has implications in the utility of the tests as they are designed to be used on capillary blood by the general population.
SARS-CoV-2 抗体检测已被推向市场,用于诊断既往 SARS-CoV-2 感染,并作为免疫状态的检测手段。然而,这些检测手段的性能和临床应用价值缺乏证据支持。我们旨在对 14 种即时检测(POC)SARS-CoV-2 抗体检测方法进行评估。使用来自经实时聚合酶链反应(PCR)确诊的既往 SARS-CoV-2 感染的参与者的血清和大流行前的血清对照,来确定每个 POC 设备的特异性和敏感性。在研究参与者队列中,确定了从感染到检测的时间间隔增加时敏感性的变化。同时还测量了相应的中和抗体状态,以确定 POC 设备检测到的抗体是否与免疫状态相关。采集配对的毛细血管和血清样本,以确定 POC 设备在毛细血管样本上的性能是否相当。POC 设备之间的敏感性和特异性存在差异,而且通常不符合制造商报告的性能特征,这表明对这些检测方法进行独立评估非常重要。敏感性在症状出现后≥20 天达到峰值,但在评估的 3 种 POC 设备在延长时间点的敏感性表明,敏感性随时间而下降。在感染后>140 天尤其明显。如果这些检测方法用于血清流行率研究,这是相关的。中和抗体数据表明,POC 设备上的阳性抗体结果不一定能产生高中和抗体滴度,而且这些 POC 设备不能用于确定对 SARS-CoV-2 病毒的免疫状态。血清和毛细血管结果的配对比较表明,使用毛细血管血时敏感性下降。这对于这些旨在由普通人群在毛细血管血上使用的检测方法的实用性具有影响。