scispace - formally typeset
Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1136/BMJ.N423

SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for possible use in national covid-19 seroprevalence surveys (React 2): diagnostic accuracy study.

02 Mar 2021-BMJ (BMJ Publishing Group)-Vol. 372
Abstract: Objective To evaluate the performance of new lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) suitable for use in a national coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) seroprevalence programme (real time assessment of community transmission 2—React 2). Design Diagnostic accuracy study. Setting Laboratory analyses were performed in the United Kingdom at Imperial College, London and university facilities in London. Research clinics for finger prick sampling were run in two affiliated NHS trusts. Participants Sensitivity analyses were performed on sera stored from 320 previous participants in the React 2 programme with confirmed previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Specificity analyses were performed on 1000 prepandemic serum samples. 100 new participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection attended study clinics for finger prick testing. Interventions Laboratory sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed for seven LFIAs on a minimum of 200 serum samples from participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 500 prepandemic serum samples, respectively. Three LFIAs were found to have a laboratory sensitivity superior to the finger prick sensitivity of the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence studies (84%). These LFIAs were then further evaluated through finger prick testing on participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: two LFIAs (Surescreen, Panbio) were evaluated in clinics in June-July 2020 and the third LFIA (AbC-19) in September 2020. A spike protein enzyme linked immunoassay and hybrid double antigen binding assay were used as laboratory reference standards. Main outcome measures The accuracy of LFIAs in detecting immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared with two reference standards. Results The sensitivity and specificity of seven new LFIAs that were analysed using sera varied from 69% to 100%, and from 98.6% to 100%, respectively (compared with the two reference standards). Sensitivity on finger prick testing was 77% (95% confidence interval 61.4% to 88.2%) for Panbio, 86% (72.7% to 94.8%) for Surescreen, and 69% (53.8% to 81.3%) for AbC-19 compared with the reference standards. Sensitivity for sera from matched clinical samples performed on AbC-19 was significantly higher with serum than finger prick at 92% (80.0% to 97.7%, P=0.01). Antibody titres varied considerably among cohorts. The numbers of positive samples identified by finger prick in the lowest antibody titre quarter varied among LFIAs. Conclusions One new LFIA was identified with clinical performance suitable for potential inclusion in seroprevalence studies. However, none of the LFIAs tested had clearly superior performance to the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence surveys, and none showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be considered for routine clinical use.

... read more

Citations
  More

17 results found


Open accessPosted ContentDOI: 10.1101/2021.06.15.21258542
Peter Horby1, M Mafham1, Leon Peto1, Mark Campbell1  +30 moreInstitutions (16)
16 Jun 2021-medRxiv
Abstract: BackgroundREGEN-COV is a combination of 2 monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab and imdevimab) that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of REGEN-COV in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus a single dose of REGEN-COV 8g (casirivimab 4g and imdevimab 4g) by intravenous infusion (REGEN-COV group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed first among patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at randomisation (seronegative) and then in the overall population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). FindingsBetween 18 September 2020 and 22 May 2021, 9785 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus REGEN-COV or usual care alone, including 3153 (32%) seronegative patients, 5272 (54%) seropositive patients and 1360 (14%) patients with unknown baseline antibody status. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to REGEN-COV and 451 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0{middle dot}80; 95% CI 0{middle dot}70-0{middle dot}91; p=0{middle dot}0010). In an analysis involving all randomised patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 944 (20%) of 4839 patients allocated to REGEN-COV and 1026 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0{middle dot}94; 95% CI 0{middle dot}86-1{middle dot}03; p=0{middle dot}17). The proportional effect of REGEN-COV on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity = 0{middle dot}001). InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) reduced 28-day mortality among patients who were seronegative at baseline. FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056).

... read more

Topics: Population (51%)

41 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.3389/FIMMU.2021.633184
Abstract: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread worldwide as a severe pandemic. Although its seroprevalence is highly variable among territories, it has been reported at around 10%, but higher in health workers. Evidence regarding cross-neutralizing response between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. However, other previous coronaviruses may interfere with SARS-CoV-2 infection, since they are phylogenetically related and share the same target receptor. Further, the seroconversion of IgM and IgG occurs at around 12 days post onset of symptoms and most patients have neutralizing titers on days 14-20, with great titer variability. Neutralizing antibodies correlate positively with age, male sex, and severity of the disease. Moreover, the use of convalescent plasma has shown controversial results in terms of safety and efficacy, and due to the variable immune response among individuals, measuring antibody titers before transfusion is mostly required. Similarly, cellular immunity seems to be crucial in the resolution of the infection, as SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells circulate to some extent in recovered patients. Of note, the duration of the antibody response has not been well established yet.

... read more

Topics: Seroconversion (59%), Antibody titer (58%), Cellular immunity (54%) ... show more

14 Citations


Open accessPosted ContentDOI: 10.1101/2021.05.08.21256867
Oliver Eales1, Andrew J. Page2, Sonja N. Tang1, Caroline E. Walters1  +24 moreInstitutions (5)
07 May 2021-medRxiv
Abstract: Genomic surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 lineages informs our understanding of possible future changes in transmissibility and vaccine efficacy. However, small changes in the frequency of one lineage over another are often difficult to interpret because surveillance samples are obtained from a variety of sources. Here, we describe lineage dynamics and phylogenetic relationships using sequences obtained from a random community sample who provided a throat and nose swab for rt-PCR during the first three months of 2021 as part of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study. Overall, diversity decreased during the first quarter of 2021, with the B.1.1.7 lineage (first identified in Kent) predominant, driven by a 0.3 unit higher reproduction number over the prior wild type. During January, positive samples were more likely B.1.1.7 in younger and middle-aged adults (aged 18 to 54) than in other age groups. Although individuals infected with the B.1.1.7 lineage were no more likely to report one or more classic COVID-19 symptoms compared to those infected with wild type, they were more likely to be antibody positive 6 weeks after infection. Viral load was higher in B.1.1.7 infection as measured by cycle threshold (Ct) values, but did not account for the increased rate of testing positive for antibodies. The presence of infections with non-imported B.1.351 lineage (first identified in South Africa) during January, but not during February or March, suggests initial establishment in the community followed by fade-out. However, this occurred during a period of stringent social distancing and targeted public health interventions and does not immediately imply similar lineages could not become established in the future. Sequence data from representative community surveys such as REACT-1 can augment routine genomic surveillance.

... read more

Topics: Lineage (genetic) (51%)

5 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00479-5
Denis Sauré1, Miguel O'Ryan1, Juan Pablo Torres1, Marcela Zuniga  +2 moreInstitutions (1)
Abstract: Summary Background By July 14, 2021, 81·3 % of adults (aged ≥18 years) in Chile had received a first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 72·3% had received a second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, with the majority of people given Sinovac's inactivated CoronaVac vaccine (75·3% of vaccines dispensed) or Pfizer–BioNTech's mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (20·9% of vaccines dispensed). Due to the absence of simultaneous real-world data for these vaccines, we aimed to compare SARS-CoV-2 IgG positivity between vaccines using a dynamic national monitoring strategy. Methods From March 12, 2021, 28 testing stations for SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection were installed in hotspots based on cellular-phone mobility tracking within the most populated cities in Chile. Individuals voluntarily approaching the testing stations were invited to do a lateral flow test by finger prick and respond to a questionnaire on sociodemographic characteristics, vaccination status (including type of vaccine if one was received), variables associated with SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and comorbidities. We compared the proportion of individuals testing positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG across sites by week since vaccination between recipients of CoronaVac and BNT162b2. Unvaccinated participants served as a control population and were matched to vaccinated individuals on the basis of date of presentation to the testing station, gender, and age group. Individuals were excluded from the analysis if they were younger than 18 years, had no declared gender, had an invalid IgG test result, had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection on PCR, could not recall their vaccination status, or had been immunised against COVID-19 with vaccines other than CoronaVac or BNT162b2. Here, we report data collected up to July 2, 2021. Findings Of 64 813 individuals enrolled, 56 261 were included in the final analysis, of whom 33 533 (59·6%) had received at least one dose of the CoronaVac vaccine, 8947 (15·9%) had received at least one dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, and 13 781 (24·5%) had not received a vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 IgG positivity during week 4 after the first dose of CoronaVac was 28·1% (95% CI 25·0–31·2; 220 of 783 individuals), reaching a peak of 77·4% (75·5–79·3; 1473 of 1902 individuals) during week 3 after the second dose. SARS-CoV-2 IgG positivity during week 4 after the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine was 79·4% (75·7–83·1; 367 of 462 individuals), increasing to 96·5% (94·9–98·1; 497 of 515 individuals) during week 3 after the second dose and remaining above 92% until the end of the study. For unvaccinated individuals, IgG seropositivity ranged from 6·0% (4·4–7·6; 49 of 810 individuals) to 18·7% (12·5–24·9; 28 of 150 individuals) during the 5 month period. Regression analyses showed that IgG seropositivity was significantly lower in men than women and in people with diabetes or chronic diseases for CoronaVac vaccine recipients (p Interpretation IgG seropositivity was lower after CoronaVac than after BNT162b2 and declined over time since vaccination for CoronaVac recipients but not BNT162b2 recipients. Prolonged IgG monitoring will allow further evaluation of seropositivity overtime, providing data, in conjunction with effectiveness studies, for possible future re-assessment of vaccination strategies. Funding Instituto Sistemas Complejos de Ingenieria and Ministerio de Salud Chile. Translation For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

... read more

Topics: Vaccination (55%)

5 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.3390/DIAGNOSTICS11071163
25 Jun 2021-
Abstract: COVID-19 Antibody Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests (COVID-19 Ab RDTs) are the preferred tool for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The present study challenged COVID-19 Ab RDTs with pre-pandemic samples of patients exposed to tropical pathogens. A retrospective study was performed on archived serum (n = 94) and EDTA whole blood (n = 126) samples obtained during 2010-2018 from 196 travelers with malaria (n = 170), schistosomiasis (n = 25) and dengue (n = 25). COVID-19 Ab RDTs were selected based on regulatory approval status, independent evaluation results and detecting antigens. Among 13 COVID-19 Ab RDT products, overall cross-reactivity was 18.5%; cross-reactivity for malaria, schistosomiasis and dengue was 20.3%, 18.1% and 7.5%, respectively. Cross-reactivity for current and recent malaria, malaria antibodies, Plasmodium species and parasite densities was similar. Cross-reactivity among the different RDT products ranged from 2.7% to 48.9% (median value 14.5%). IgM represented 67.9% of cross-reactive test lines. Cross-reactivity was not associated with detecting antigens, patient categories or disease (sub)groups, except for schistosomiasis (two products with ≥60% cross-reactivity). The high cross-reactivity for malaria, schistosomiasis and-to a lesser extent-dengue calls for risk mitigation when using COVID-19 Ab RDTs in co-endemic regions.

... read more

Topics: Schistosomiasis (54%), Malaria (53%), Dengue fever (50%)

4 Citations


References
  More

17 results found


Journal ArticleDOI: 10.2307/2529310
J. R. Landis1, Gary G. KochInstitutions (1)
01 Mar 1977-Biometrics
Abstract: This paper presents a general statistical methodology for the analysis of multivariate categorical data arising from observer reliability studies. The procedure essentially involves the construction of functions of the observed proportions which are directed at the extent to which the observers agree among themselves and the construction of test statistics for hypotheses involving these functions. Tests for interobserver bias are presented in terms of first-order marginal homogeneity and measures of interobserver agreement are developed as generalized kappa-type statistics. These procedures are illustrated with a clinical diagnosis example from the epidemiological literature.

... read more

Topics: Categorical variable (58%), Fleiss' kappa (54%), Intra-rater reliability (51%) ... show more

56,227 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31483-5
22 Aug 2020-The Lancet
Abstract: Summary Background Spain is one of the European countries most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Serological surveys are a valuable tool to assess the extent of the epidemic, given the existence of asymptomatic cases and little access to diagnostic tests. This nationwide population-based study aims to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Spain at national and regional level. Methods 35 883 households were selected from municipal rolls using two-stage random sampling stratified by province and municipality size, with all residents invited to participate. From April 27 to May 11, 2020, 61 075 participants (75·1% of all contacted individuals within selected households) answered a questionnaire on history of symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and risk factors, received a point-of-care antibody test, and, if agreed, donated a blood sample for additional testing with a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Prevalences of IgG antibodies were adjusted using sampling weights and post-stratification to allow for differences in non-response rates based on age group, sex, and census-tract income. Using results for both tests, we calculated a seroprevalence range maximising either specificity (positive for both tests) or sensitivity (positive for either test). Findings Seroprevalence was 5·0% (95% CI 4·7–5·4) by the point-of-care test and 4·6% (4·3–5·0) by immunoassay, with a specificity–sensitivity range of 3·7% (3·3–4·0; both tests positive) to 6·2% (5·8–6·6; either test positive), with no differences by sex and lower seroprevalence in children younger than 10 years ( 10%) and lower in coastal areas ( Interpretation The majority of the Spanish population is seronegative to SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in hotspot areas. Most PCR-confirmed cases have detectable antibodies, but a substantial proportion of people with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 did not have a PCR test and at least a third of infections determined by serology were asymptomatic. These results emphasise the need for maintaining public health measures to avoid a new epidemic wave. Funding Spanish Ministry of Health, Institute of Health Carlos III, and Spanish National Health System.

... read more

Topics: Seroprevalence (61%), Population (54%)

1,070 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013652
Abstract: Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. Search methods We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. Authors' conclusions The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

... read more

494 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1136/BMJ.M2516
01 Jul 2020-BMJ
Abstract: Objective To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19. Eligibility criteria and data analysis Eligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset. Results 5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%). Conclusion Higher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests. Study registration PROSPERO CRD42020179452.

... read more

Topics: Population (51%)

493 Citations


Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1001/JAMA.2020.8279
Neeraj Sood1, Paul A. Simon2, Peggy J. Ebner1, Daniel Eichner  +3 moreInstitutions (3)
16 Jun 2020-JAMA
Abstract: This population epidemiology study investigates the prevalence of IgG and IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Los Angeles County, California, as a marker of both active and past infections.

... read more

Topics: Seroprevalence (55%), Population (52%)

316 Citations