Acceptability, usability and performance of lateral flow immunoassay tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: REACT-2 study of self-testing in non-healthcare key workers

Abstract

Background Seroprevalence studies are essential to understand the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. Various technologies, including laboratory assays and point-of-care self-tests, are available for antibody testing. The interpretation of seroprevalence studies requires comparative data on the performance of antibody tests. Methods In June 2020, current and former members of the UK Police forces and Fire service performed a self-test lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), had a nurse-performed LFIA and provided a venous blood sample for ELISA . We present the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2; the acceptability and usability of self-test LFIAs; and determine the sensitivity and specificity of LFIAs compared to laboratory ELISA. Results In this cohort of 5189 current and former members of the Police service and 263 members of the Fire service, 7.4% (396/5,348; 95% CI, 6.7-8.1) were antibody positive. Seroprevalence was 8.9% (6.9-11.4) in those under 40 years, 11.5% (8.8-15.0) in those of non-white ethnicity and 7.8% (7.1-8.7) in those currently working. Self-test LFIA had an acceptability of 97.7% and a usability of 90.0%. There was substantial agreement between within-participant LFIA results (kappa 0.80; 0.77-0.83). The LFIAs had a similar performance: compared to ELISA, sensitivity was 82.1% (77.7-86.0) self-test and 76.4% (71.9-80.5) nurse-performed with specificity of 97.8% (97.3-98.2) and 98.5% (98.1-98.8) respectively. Conclusion A greater proportion of this non-healthcare key worker cohort showed evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 than the general population at 6.0% (5.8-6.1) following the first wave in England. The high acceptability and usability reported by participants and similar performance of self-test and nurse-performed LFIAs indicate that the self-test LFIA is fit for purpose for home-testing in occupational and community prevalence studies.