Accuracy of UK Rapid Test Consortium (UK-RTC) “AbC-19 Rapid Test” for detection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in key workers: test accuracy study

Abstract

Objective To assess the accuracy of the AbC-19 Rapid Test lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Design Test accuracy study. Setting Laboratory based evaluation. Participants 2847 key workers (healthcare staff, fire and rescue officers, and police officers) in England in June 2020 (268 with a previous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result (median 63 days previously), 2579 with unknown previous infection status); and 1995 pre-pandemic blood donors. Main outcome measures AbC-19 sensitivity and specificity, estimated using known negative (pre-pandemic) and known positive (PCR confirmed) samples as reference standards and secondly using the Roche Elecsys anti-nucleoprotein assay, a highly sensitive laboratory immunoassay, as a reference standard in samples from key workers. Results Test result bands were often weak, with positive/negative discordance by three trained laboratory staff for 3.9% of devices. Using consensus readings, for known positive and negative samples sensitivity was 92.5% (95% confidence interval 88.8% to 95.1%) and specificity was 97.9% (97.2% to 98.4%). Using an immunoassay reference standard, sensitivity was 94.2% (90.7% to 96.5%) among PCR confirmed cases but 84.7% (80.6% to 88.1%) among other people with antibodies. This is consistent with AbC-19 being more sensitive when antibody concentrations are higher, as people with PCR confirmation tended to have more severe disease whereas only 62% (218/354) of seropositive participants had had symptoms. If 1 million key workers were tested with AbC-19 and 10% had actually been previously infected, 84 700 true positive and 18 900 false positive results would be projected. The probability that a positive result was correct would be 81.7% (76.8% to 85.8%). Conclusions AbC-19 sensitivity was lower among unselected populations than among PCR confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the scope for overestimation of assay performance in studies involving only PCR confirmed cases, owing to “spectrum bias.” Assuming that 10% of the tested population have had SARS-CoV-2 infection, around one in five key workers testing positive with AbC-19 would be false positives. Study registration ISRCTN 56609224.

Vaccination in twin pregnancies: comparison between immunization before conception and during pregnancy

“…The sensitivity and specificity of this assay are both > 99%. The cutoff index (COI) was defined as < 1.0 for non-reactive samples 13 . Serological values are expressed as arbitrary units per milliliter (AU//mL according to the standardization of the World Health Organization (WHO) 14 .…”

Alternative COVID-19 mitigation measures in school classrooms: analysis using an agent-based model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission

“…The rapid testing is capable of identifying asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infection, allowing early quarantine by advancing members from the E state to Q . However, all tests have the potential to return misleading results, which may be particularly acute when administered by untrained people [28]. Therefore, we model the application of rapid testing using a stochastic approach.…”

“…The sensitivity of rapid testing in the UK can be high if administered correctly [28]. However, in studies of self-administered lateral flow tests by untrained members of the public, the sensitivity can be as low as 0.58 [14].…”

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19

“…Eleven studies were selected using LFIA as an IgG detection technique [75,77,79,[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116]. A total of 15,935 subjects were studied.…”

“…Data analysis and paired forest plot of the sensitivity and specificity of the lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for IgG in the diagnosis of COVID-19.Sensitivity and specificity are reported as mean (95% confidence limits). The forest plot represents the estimated sensitivity and specificity (black squares) and their 95% confidence limits (horizontal black line)[75,77,79,[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116].…”