1Infectious Diseases Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
2Division of Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021 Jun 28;105(2):378-386. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-1390.
Antibody tests can be tools for detecting current or past severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 [coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)]) infections. Independent test evaluations are needed to document the performance with different sample sets. We evaluated six lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two laboratory-based tests (EUROIMMUN-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA and Abbott-Architect-SARS-CoV-2-IgG). We tested 210 plasma samples from 89 patients diagnosed with acute COVID-19. These samples were collected at different time points after the onset of symptoms. In addition, 80 convalescent plasma samples, and 168 pre-pandemic samples collected from adults in the United States and in Africa were tested. LFA performance varied widely, and some tests with high sensitivity had low specificity. LFA sensitivities were low (18.8-40.6%) for samples collected 0 to 3 days after symptom onset, and were greater (80.3-96.4%) for samples collected > 14 days after symptom onset. These results are similar to those obtained by ELISA (15.6% and 89.1%) and chemiluminescent microparticle assay (21.4% and 93.1%). The range of test specificity was between 82.7% and 97%. The combined use of two LFAs can increase specificity to more than 99% without a major loss of sensitivity. Because of suboptimal sensitivity with early COVID-19 samples and background reactivity with some pre-pandemic samples, none of the evaluated tests alone is reliable enough for definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. However, antibody testing may be useful for assessing the status of the epidemic or vaccination campaign. Some of the LFAs had sensitivities and specificities that were comparable to those of more expensive laboratory tests, and these may be useful for seroprevalence surveys in resource-limited settings.
抗体检测可用于检测当前或过去的严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2[2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)])感染。需要独立的测试评估来记录不同样本集的性能。我们评估了六种侧向流动测定法(LFAs)和两种基于实验室的测试(EUROIMMUN-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA 和 Abbott-Architect-SARS-CoV-2-IgG)。我们测试了 210 份来自 89 名确诊为急性 COVID-19 患者的血浆样本。这些样本是在症状出现后的不同时间点采集的。此外,还测试了 80 份恢复期血浆样本和 168 份来自美国和非洲成年人的大流行前样本。LFA 的性能差异很大,一些具有高灵敏度的测试特异性较低。对于症状出现后 0 至 3 天采集的样本,LFA 的敏感性较低(18.8-40.6%),对于症状出现后>14 天采集的样本,敏感性较高(80.3-96.4%)。这些结果与 ELISA(15.6%和 89.1%)和化学发光微粒子测定法(21.4%和 93.1%)的结果相似。测试特异性的范围在 82.7%至 97%之间。两种 LFA 的联合使用可以将特异性提高到 99%以上,而不会显著降低敏感性。由于早期 COVID-19 样本的敏感性不理想,并且一些大流行前样本存在背景反应,因此单独使用评估的任何一种测试都不足以可靠地确诊 COVID-19 感染。然而,抗体检测可能有助于评估疫情或疫苗接种运动的状况。一些 LFAs 的敏感性和特异性与更昂贵的实验室测试相当,这些测试可能对资源有限的环境中的血清流行率调查有用。