Point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and neutralisation capacity-lateral flow immunoassay evaluation compared to commercial assay to inform potential role in therapeutic and surveillance practices.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: As the COVID-19 pandemic moves towards endemic status, testing strategies are being de-escalated. A rapid and effective point of care test (POCT) assessment of SARS-CoV-2 immune responses can inform clinical decision-making and epidemiological monitoring of the disease. This cross-sectional seroprevalence study of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Irish healthcare workers assessed how rapid anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing can be compared to a standard laboratory assay, discusses its effectiveness in neutralisation assessment and its uses into the future of the pandemic. Methods: A point of care lateral flow immunoassay (LFA) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S)-receptor binding domain (RBD) neutralising antibodies (Healgen SARS-CoV-2 neutralising Antibody Rapid Test Cassette) was compared to the Roche Elecsys/-S anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays and an in vitro surrogate neutralisation assay. A correlation between anti-spike (S), anti-nucleocapsid (N) titres, and in vitro neutralisation was also assessed. Results: 1,777 serology samples were tested using Roche Elecsys/-S anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays to detect total anti-N/S antibodies. 1,562 samples were tested using the POC LFA (including 50 negative controls), and 90 samples were tested using an in vitro ACE2-RBD binding inhibition surrogate neutralisation assay. The POCT demonstrated 97.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 61% in comparison to the commercial assay. Anti-S antibody titres determined by the Roche assay stratified by the POC LFA result groups demonstrated statistically significant differences between the "Positive" and "Negative" LFA groups (p < 0.0001) and the "Weak Positive" and "Positive" LFA groups (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference in ACE2-RBD binding inhibition was demonstrated when stratified by the LFA POC results. A positive, statistically significant correlation was demonstrated between the in vitro pseudo-neutralisation assay results and anti-S antibody titres (rho 0.423, p < 0.001) and anti-N antibody titres (rho = 0.55, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: High sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were demonstrated for the POC LFA for the detection of anti-S-RBD antibodies in comparison to the commercial assay. The LFA was not a reliable determinant of the neutralisation capacity of identified antibodies. POC LFA are useful tools in sero-epidemiology settings, pandemic preparedness and may act as supportive tools in treatment decisions through the rapid identification of anti-Spike antibodies.