GPS-estimated foot traffic data and venue selection for COVID-19 serosurveillance studies

The initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US was marked by limited diagnostic testing, resulting in the need for seroprevalence studies to estimate cumulative incidence and define epidemic dynamics. In lieu of systematic representational surveillance, venue-based sampling was often used to rapidly estimate a communitys seroprevalence. However, biases and uncertainty due to site selection and use of convenience samples are poorly understood. Using data from a SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance study we performed in Somerville, Massachusetts, we found that the uncertainty in seroprevalence estimates depends on how well sampling intensity matches the known or expected geographic distribution of seropositive individuals in the study area. We use GPS-estimated foot traffic to measure and account for these sources of bias. Our results demonstrated that study-site selection informed by mobility patterns can markedly improve seroprevalence estimates. Such data should be used in the design and interpretation of venue-based serosurveillance studies.

Analytical performance of lateral flow immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 exposure screening on venous and capillary blood samples

ObjectivesNumerous serologic immunoassays have been launched to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, including rapid tests. Here, we validate use of a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) intended for rapid screening and qualitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG in serum, plasma, and whole blood, and compare results with ELISA. We also seek to establish the value of LFI testing on blood obtained from a capillary blood sample. MethodsSamples collected by venous blood draw and capillary finger stick were obtained from patients with SARS-CoV-2 detected by RT-qPCR and control patients negative for SARS-CoV-2. Samples were tested with the 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit (Colloidal Gold) lateral flow immunoassay, and antibody calls were compared with results obtained by ELISA. ResultsThe Biolidics LFI kit shows clinical sensitivity of 92% at 7 days after PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 on venous blood. Test specificity was 92% for IgM and 100% for IgG. There was no significant difference in detecting IgM and IgG with Biolidics LFI and ELISA at D0 and D7 (p=1.00), except for detection of IgM at D7 (p=0.04). Finger stick whole blood of SARS-CoV-2 patients showed 93% sensitivity for antibody detection. ConclusionsClinical performance of Biolidics 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit (Colloidal Gold) is comparable to ELISA and showed consistent results across different sample types. Furthermore, we show that capillary blood obtained by finger stick shows similar sensitivity for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies as venous blood samples. This provides an opportunity for decentralized rapid testing in the community and may allow point-of-care and longitudinal self-testing for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.