Search

Background Seroprevalence studies are essential to understand the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (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 United Kingdom 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 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We present the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and the acceptability and usability of self-test LFIAs, and we determine the sensitivity and specificity of LFIAs compared with 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 of 5348; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7–8.1) were antibody positive. Seroprevalence was 8.9% (95% CI, 6.9–11.4) in those under 40 years, 11.5% (95% CI, 8.8–15.0) in those of nonwhite ethnicity, and 7.8% (95% CI, 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; 95% CI, 0.77–0.83). The LFIAs had a similar performance: compared with ELISA, sensitivity was 82.1% (95% CI, 77.7–86.0) self-test and 76.4% (95% CI, 71.9–80.5) nurse-performed with specificity of 97.8% (95% CI, 97.3–98.2) and 98.5% (95% CI, 98.1–98.8), respectively. Conclusions A greater proportion of this nonhealthcare key worker cohort showed evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 than the general population at 6.0% (95% CI, 5.8–6.1) after 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]