Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to dete...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. / Owen, Sophie I.; Williams, Christopher T.; Garrod, Gala et al.
In: Journal of Infection, Vol. 84, No. 3, 31.03.2022, p. 355-360.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Owen, SI, Williams, CT, Garrod, G, Fraser, AJ, Menzies, S, Baldwin, L, Brown, L, Byrne, RL, Collins, AM, Cubas-Atienzar, AI, de Vos, M, Edwards, T, Escadafal, C, Ferreira, DM, Fletcher, T, Hyder-Wright, A, Kay, GA, Kontogianni, K, Mason, J, Mitsi, E, Planche, T, Sacks, JA, Taylor, J, Todd, S, Tully, C, Cuevas, LE & Adams, ER 2022, 'Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies', Journal of Infection, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 355-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2021.12.007

APA

Owen, S. I., Williams, C. T., Garrod, G., Fraser, A. J., Menzies, S., Baldwin, L., Brown, L., Byrne, R. L., Collins, A. M., Cubas-Atienzar, A. I., de Vos, M., Edwards, T., Escadafal, C., Ferreira, D. M., Fletcher, T., Hyder-Wright, A., Kay, G. A., Kontogianni, K., Mason, J., ... Adams, E. R. (2022). Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Journal of Infection, 84(3), 355-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2021.12.007

Vancouver

Owen SI, Williams CT, Garrod G, Fraser AJ, Menzies S, Baldwin L et al. Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Journal of Infection. 2022 Mar 31;84(3):355-360. Epub 2022 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.12.007

Author

Owen, Sophie I. ; Williams, Christopher T. ; Garrod, Gala et al. / Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In: Journal of Infection. 2022 ; Vol. 84, No. 3. pp. 355-360.

Bibtex

@article{b64862e524c74e77b4264826e474668f,
title = "Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies",
abstract = "Background: There are an abundance of commercially available lateral flow assays (LFAs) that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Whilst these are usually evaluated by the manufacturer, externally performed diagnostic accuracy studies to assess performance are essential. Herein we present an evaluation of 12 LFAs. Methods: Sera from 100 SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive participants were recruited through the FASTER study. A total of 105 pre-pandemic sera from participants with other infections were included as negative samples. Results: At presentation sensitivity against RT-PCR ranged from 37.4 to 79% for IgM/IgG, 30.3–74% for IgG, and 21.2–67% for IgM. Sensitivity for IgM/IgG improved ≥ 21 days post symptom onset for 10/12 tests. Specificity ranged from 74.3 to 99.1% for IgM/IgG, 82.9–100% for IgG, and 75.2–98% for IgM. Compared to the EuroImmun IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), sensitivity and specificity ranged from 44.6 to 95.4% and 85.4–100%, respectively. Conclusion: There are many LFAs available with varied sensitivity and specificity. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of these tests will be vital as we come to rely more on the antibody status of a person moving forward, and as such manufacturer-independent evaluations are crucial.",
keywords = "COVID-19, IgG, IgM, Lateral flow immunoassays, SARS-CoV-2",
author = "Owen, {Sophie I.} and Williams, {Christopher T.} and Gala Garrod and Fraser, {Alice J.} and Stefanie Menzies and Lisa Baldwin and Lottie Brown and Byrne, {Rachel L.} and Collins, {Andrea M.} and Cubas-Atienzar, {Ana I.} and {de Vos}, Margaretha and Thomas Edwards and Camille Escadafal and Ferreira, {Daniela M.} and Tom Fletcher and Angela Hyder-Wright and Kay, {Grant A.} and Konstantina Kontogianni and Jenifer Mason and Elena Mitsi and Tim Planche and Sacks, {Jilian A.} and Joseph Taylor and Stacy Todd and Caroline Tully and Cuevas, {Luis E.} and Adams, {Emily R.}",
year = "2022",
month = mar,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1016/j.jinf.2021.12.007",
language = "English",
volume = "84",
pages = "355--360",
journal = "Journal of Infection",
issn = "0163-4453",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Twelve lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

AU - Owen, Sophie I.

AU - Williams, Christopher T.

AU - Garrod, Gala

AU - Fraser, Alice J.

AU - Menzies, Stefanie

AU - Baldwin, Lisa

AU - Brown, Lottie

AU - Byrne, Rachel L.

AU - Collins, Andrea M.

AU - Cubas-Atienzar, Ana I.

AU - de Vos, Margaretha

AU - Edwards, Thomas

AU - Escadafal, Camille

AU - Ferreira, Daniela M.

AU - Fletcher, Tom

AU - Hyder-Wright, Angela

AU - Kay, Grant A.

AU - Kontogianni, Konstantina

AU - Mason, Jenifer

AU - Mitsi, Elena

AU - Planche, Tim

AU - Sacks, Jilian A.

AU - Taylor, Joseph

AU - Todd, Stacy

AU - Tully, Caroline

AU - Cuevas, Luis E.

AU - Adams, Emily R.

PY - 2022/3/31

Y1 - 2022/3/31

N2 - Background: There are an abundance of commercially available lateral flow assays (LFAs) that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Whilst these are usually evaluated by the manufacturer, externally performed diagnostic accuracy studies to assess performance are essential. Herein we present an evaluation of 12 LFAs. Methods: Sera from 100 SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive participants were recruited through the FASTER study. A total of 105 pre-pandemic sera from participants with other infections were included as negative samples. Results: At presentation sensitivity against RT-PCR ranged from 37.4 to 79% for IgM/IgG, 30.3–74% for IgG, and 21.2–67% for IgM. Sensitivity for IgM/IgG improved ≥ 21 days post symptom onset for 10/12 tests. Specificity ranged from 74.3 to 99.1% for IgM/IgG, 82.9–100% for IgG, and 75.2–98% for IgM. Compared to the EuroImmun IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), sensitivity and specificity ranged from 44.6 to 95.4% and 85.4–100%, respectively. Conclusion: There are many LFAs available with varied sensitivity and specificity. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of these tests will be vital as we come to rely more on the antibody status of a person moving forward, and as such manufacturer-independent evaluations are crucial.

AB - Background: There are an abundance of commercially available lateral flow assays (LFAs) that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Whilst these are usually evaluated by the manufacturer, externally performed diagnostic accuracy studies to assess performance are essential. Herein we present an evaluation of 12 LFAs. Methods: Sera from 100 SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positive participants were recruited through the FASTER study. A total of 105 pre-pandemic sera from participants with other infections were included as negative samples. Results: At presentation sensitivity against RT-PCR ranged from 37.4 to 79% for IgM/IgG, 30.3–74% for IgG, and 21.2–67% for IgM. Sensitivity for IgM/IgG improved ≥ 21 days post symptom onset for 10/12 tests. Specificity ranged from 74.3 to 99.1% for IgM/IgG, 82.9–100% for IgG, and 75.2–98% for IgM. Compared to the EuroImmun IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), sensitivity and specificity ranged from 44.6 to 95.4% and 85.4–100%, respectively. Conclusion: There are many LFAs available with varied sensitivity and specificity. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of these tests will be vital as we come to rely more on the antibody status of a person moving forward, and as such manufacturer-independent evaluations are crucial.

KW - COVID-19

KW - IgG

KW - IgM

KW - Lateral flow immunoassays

KW - SARS-CoV-2

U2 - 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.12.007

DO - 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.12.007

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 34906597

AN - SCOPUS:85121915055

VL - 84

SP - 355

EP - 360

JO - Journal of Infection

JF - Journal of Infection

SN - 0163-4453

IS - 3

ER -