Use of dried blood spot samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection using the Roche Elecsys high throughput immunoassay
EDSAB-HOME Study Investigators,
Posted 21 Oct 2020
medRxiv DOI: 10.1101/2020.10.19.20215228
Posted 21 Oct 2020
BackgroundDried blood spot samples (DBS) provide an alternative sample type to venous blood samples for antibody testing. DBS are used by NHS for diagnosing HCV and by PHE for large scale HIV and Hepatitis C serosurveillance; the applicability of DBS based approaches to SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection is uncertain. ObjectiveTo compare antibody detection in dried blood spot eluates using the Roche Elecsys (R) immunoassay (index test) with antibody detection in paired plasma samples, using the same assay (reference test). SettingOne Police and one Fire & Rescue facility in England. Participants195 participants within a larger sample COVID-19 serodiagnostics study of keyworkers, EDSAB-HOME. Outcome MeasuresSensitivity and specificity of DBS (the index test) relative to plasma (the reference test), at an experimental cut-off; quality of DBS sample collected; estimates of relative sensitivity of DBS vs. plasma immunoassay in a larger population. Results18/195 (9.2%) participants tested positive using plasma samples. DBS sample quality varied markedly by phlebotomist, and low sample volume significantly reduced immunoassay signals. Using a cut-off of ten median absolute deviations above the immunoassay result with negative samples, sensitivity and specificity of DBS were 89.0% (95% CI 67.2, 96.9%) and 100.0% (95% CI 97.9, 100%) respectively compared with using plasma. The limit of detection for DBS is about 30 times higher than for plasma. ConclusionDBS use for SARS-CoV-2 serology, though feasible, is insensitive relative to immunoassays on plasma. Sample quality impacts on assay performance. Alternatives, including the collection of capillary blood samples, should be considered for screening programs.
- Downloaded 258 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 108,220
- In infectious diseases: 4,558
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 69,154
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 90,257
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!