Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May:118:132-137.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.02.052. Epub 2022 Feb 26.

Performance evaluation of novel fluorescent-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for rapid detection and quantification of total anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD binding antibodies in infected individuals

Affiliations

Performance evaluation of novel fluorescent-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for rapid detection and quantification of total anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD binding antibodies in infected individuals

Farah M Shurrab et al. Int J Infect Dis. 2022 May.

Abstract

Background: A vast majority of the commercially available lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies qualitatively. Recently, a novel fluorescence-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test was developed for quantitative measurement of the total binding antibody units (BAUs) (BAU/mL) against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (S-RBD).

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the fluorescence LFIA FinecareTM 2019-nCoV S-RBD test along with its reader (Model No.: FS-113).

Methods: Plasma from 150 reverse trancriptase-PCR (RT-PCR)-confirmed positive individuals and 100 prepandemic samples were tested by FincareTM to access sensitivity and specificity. For qualitative and quantitative validation of the FinCareTM measurements, BAU/mL results of FinCareTM were compared with results of 2 reference assays: the surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT, GenScript Biotech, USA) and the VIDAS®3 automated assay (BioMérieux, France).

Results: FinecareTM showed 92% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared with PCR. Cohen's Kappa statistic denoted moderate and excellent agreement with sVNT and VIDAS®3, with values being 0.557 (95% CI: 0.32-0.78) and 0.731 (95% CI: 0.51-0.95), respectively. A strong correlation was observed between FinecareTM/sVNT (r = 0.7, p < 0.0001) and FinecareTM/VIDAS®3 (r = 0.8, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: FinecareTM is a reliable assay and can be used as a surrogate to assess binding and neutralizing antibody response after infection or vaccination, particularly in none or small laboratory settings.

Keywords: COVID-19; Fluorescence immunoassay; Lateral Flow Assay; SARS-CoV-2; Serology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest GKN would like to declare that all test kits used in this study were provided as in-kind support for his laboratory to test seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 and antibody response among vaccinated and infected individuals in Qatar.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Correlation analysis of the assays standardized readings obtained by each immunoassay. (A) Correlation plot of FinecareTM with the sVNT. (B) Correlation plot of FinecareTM with VIDAS®3. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) and p-value are indicated. Pearson's r of 0–0.19 is regarded as very weak, 0.2–0.39 as weak, 0.40–0.59 as moderate, 0.6–0.79 as strong, and 0.8–1 as very strong correlation, but these are rather arbitrary limits, and the context of the results should be considered. Data are presented for 150 RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2–positive samples. BAU, binding antibody unit; RT-PCR, reverse transcriptase–PCR; sVNT, surrogate virus-neutralizing test.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ROC curve for Finecare 2019-nCoV RBD Antibody Test. An AUC of 0.9–1.0 is considered excellent, 0.8–0.9 is considered very good, 0.7–0.8 is considered good, 0.6–0.7 is considered sufficient, 0.5–0.6 is considered bad, and <0.5 is considered not useful. AUC, area under the curve; ROC, receiver Operating Characteristic.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Al-Jighefee HT, Yassine HM, Nasrallah GKJP. Evaluation of antibody response in symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 patients and diagnostic assessment of new IgM/IgG ELISA kits. Pathogens. 2021;10(2):161. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Al-Thani MH, Farag E, Bertollini R, Al Romaihi HE, Abdeen S, Abdelkarim A, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the craft and manual worker population of Qatar. medRxiv. 2020 doi: 10.1101/2020.11.24.20237719. - DOI
    1. Ben-David AJESwA. Comparison of classification accuracy using Cohen's Weighted Kappa. Expert Systems with Applications. 2008;34(2):825–832.
    1. Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DK, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25(3) - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dortet L, Ronat J-B, Vauloup-Fellous C, Langendorf C, Mendels D-A, Emeraud C, et al. Evaluating 10 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests by use of the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) method. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2021;59(2):e02342. -20. - PMC - PubMed

Substances