No abstract

To assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA) of four different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or clinical defined (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection respectively). Methods. 119 serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the groups: (1) Group with SARS-CoV-2 infection [n=82; RT-qPCR positive (definite, n=70), and probable (n=12)]; (2) other diseases [n= 27; other viruses identified (n=8), SARS of other etiologies (n=19)]; (3) healthy control group (n=10). LFA essays of four manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavírus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and one Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co, China). Results. The four tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95%CI, 77.26-93.11%); specificity (100%; 90.51-100%); DOR (257; 60-1008); LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85); LR− (0.13; 0.08 - 0.23); accuracy (90.76%; 84.06- 95.29%); Matthews Correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values. Conclusion. Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the manufacturers. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics, but should be used as additional screening tool.

Conducted the experiments, Acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; GG: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; SMR: Conception and design of the study, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; SMdA: Conception and design of the study, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; LAP: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; IR: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; BMC: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; FBM: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; CLTD: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; GRdAT: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; RCRC: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; BSS: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; LB: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; JCdO: Conduction of the experiments, Analysis and interpretation of data, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; DA: Conduction of the experiments, Analysis and interpretation of data, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; DFG: Conduction of the experiments, Analysis and interpretation of data, Participated in Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; ACB: Conduction of the experiments, Analysis and interpretation of data, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; RW: Conduction of the experiments, Analysis and interpretation of data, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; JMA: Acquisition and organization of clinical data from medical records; RdSP: Acquisition and organization of clinical data from medical records; VJWB: Acquisition and organization of clinical data from medical records; BMMdA: Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; MBN: Conception and design of the study, Conducted the experiments, Acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, Writing the paper and its critical, Study supervisor.

Background. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA) of four different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or clinical defined (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection respectively). Methods. 119 serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the groups: (1) Group with SARS-CoV-2 infection [n=82; RT-qPCR positive (definite, n=70), and probable (n=12)]; (2) other diseases [n= 27; other viruses identified (n=8), SARS of other etiologies (n=19)]; (3) healthy control group (n=10). LFA essays of four manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavírus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and one Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co, China).Results. The four tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95%CI, 77.26-93.11%); specificity (100%; 90.51-100%); DOR (257; 60-1008); LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85); LR− (0.13; 0.08 - 0.23); accuracy (90.76%; 84.06- 95.29%); Matthews Correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values.Conclusion. Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the manufacturers. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics, but should be used as additional screening tool.

Background. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA) of four different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or clinical defined (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection respectively). Methods. 119 serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the groups: (1) Group with SARS-CoV-2 infection [n=82; RT-qPCR positive (definite, n=70), and probable (n=12)]; (2) other diseases [n= 27; other viruses identified (n=8), SARS of other etiologies (n=19)]; (3) healthy control group (n=10). LFA essays of four manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavírus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and one Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co, China).Results. The four tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95%CI, 77.26-93.11%); specificity (100%; 90.51-100%); DOR (257; 60-1008); LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85); LR− (0.13; 0.08 - 0.23); accuracy (90.76%; 84.06- 95.29%); Matthews Correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values.Conclusion. Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the manufacturers. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics, but should be used as additional screening tool.