Abstract
Importance Serological assays can help diagnose and determine the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a population.
Objective We characterized and compared 11 different lateral flow assays for their performance in diagnostic or epidemiological settings.
Design, Setting, Participants We used two cohorts to determine the specificity: (i) up to 350 blood donor samples from past influenza seasons and (ii) up to 110 samples which tested PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2 during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Switzerland. The sensitivity was determined using up to 370 samples which tested PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the same time and is representative for age distribution and severity.
Main Outcome We found a single test usable for epidemiological studies in the current low-prevalence setting, all other tests showed lacking sensitivity or specificity for a usage in either epidemiological or diagnostic setting. However, orthogonal testing by combining two tests without common cross-reactivities makes testing in a low-prevalence setting feasible.
Results Nine out of the eleven tests showed specificities below 99%, only five of eleven tests showed sensitivities comparable to established ELISAs, and only one fulfilled both criteria. Contrary to previous results from lab assays, five tests measured an IgM response in >80% of the samples. We found no common cross-reactivities, which allows orthogonal testing schemes for five tests of sufficient sensitivities.
Conclusions and Relevance This study emphasizes the need for large and diverse negative cohorts when determining specificities, and for diverse and representative positive samples when determining sensitivities of lateral flow assays for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Failure to adhere to statistically relevant sample sizes or cohorts exclusively made up of hospitalised patients fails to accurately capture the performance of these assays in epidemiological settings. Our results allow a rational choice between tests for different use cases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was financed by the Swiss Red Cross and the canton of Basel-Landschaft. The authors received institutional funding from their main affiliation. FR receives funding from the NCCR Molecular Systems Engineering.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study is part of the project COVID-19 in Baselland Investigation and Validation of Serological Diagnostic Assays and Epidemiological Study of Sars-CoV-2 specific Antibody Responses (SERO-BL-COVID-19) approved by the ethics board Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz (EKNZ), Hebelstrasse 53, 4056 Basel representative of Swissethics under the number (2020-00816).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Table 1 and Figure 3 corrected
Data Availability
Data are available upon request
