ZME Science
No Result
View All Result
ZME Science
No Result
View All Result
ZME Science

Home → Science

These researchers studied coronavirus immunity tests. None of them were accurate

If our lockdown exit strategy hinges on immunity tests, we might be in for a world of trouble.

Mihai AndreibyMihai Andrei
April 22, 2020
in Health, Science
A A
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterSubmit to Reddit

As the world is increasingly looking at ways to ease the coronavirus lockdown, immunity tests are gaining more and more attention. The idea of such a test is that it would detect not who has the disease now, but who has had it in the past and has developed an immune response. In other words, it would detect who is immune to the disease and can safely reemerge into society.

The only problem is, these tests might not work well enough.

“There is an urgent need for robust antibody detection approaches to support diagnostics, vaccine development, safe individual release from quarantine and population lock-down exit strategies,” the authors of a new study write.

The researchers were led by Professor Derrick Crook of Oxford University in the UK. The UK has had its own unfortunate experience with immunity tests, having purchased millions of such tests from China, only to find out that they didn’t work.

The UK’s bad tests might not be an exception. Several antibody tests have been questioned by scientists and for all their promise, the results of antibody tests have been surprisingly uncertain.

So Crook and colleagues analyzed 142 blood samples from adults (from ethically approved sources). They used nine different commercially available tests, although they did not disclose exactly what the tests were.

The results, however, were clear: the commercial antibody tests — also called lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices — are not sensitive enough. None of the nine tests were accurate in all instances, all had shortcomings, particularly when it came to detecting samples without the antibodies.

So where does this leave us? Well, the Oxford researchers didn’t analyze all of the available antibody tests, so there may still be others that are effective. The published result is also a white paper, not a peer-reviewed paper, so other experts haven’t had their say on the Oxford results.

RelatedPosts

That 2022 Hepatitis Outbreak in Kids? It Was Apparently COVID
Coronavirus lockdown in California saves taxpayers $1 billion in avoided car crashes
Apparently, some people think coronavirus comes from Corona beer
In a full-on pandemic, Americans are still planning large-scale gatherings

Expert reactions have been mixed regarding the study. Richard Tedder, visiting professor in medical virology at Imperial College London, said there is very little usefulness to this study.

“Interesting though the data are, they are simply of no value at this time as there is no way of relating the Oxford findings of an in-house assay to those PoCT assays which are currently known about in this country.”

Meanwhile, Eleanor Riley, professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh praised the paper and said it highlights the need for more accurate tests. She also added that even with the shortcomings, existing tests might be useful.

“It shows that the problem with the commercial rapid antibody tests is that they are not sensitive enough – they fail to pick up antibodies in over a third of people who do in fact have antibodies.”

“However, these tests do have acceptable levels of specificity – that is, they are only picking up people who have genuinely been exposed to the Covid-19 virus.”

“This means if your test is positive, you can be confident that you have been infected and have antibodies. But if your test is negative, you can’t rule out that you might have been infected.”

Nevertheless, this is a strong indication that we might not be as close to accurate immunity tests as we thought — but this doesn’t mean that they’re any less significant.

The study concludes:

“LFIA devices are cheap to manufacture, store and distribute, and could be used as a point-ofcare test by healthcare practitioners or individuals at home, offering an appealing approach to diagnostics and evaluating individual and population-level exposure. A positive antibody test is currently regarded as a probable surrogate for immunity to reinfection. Secure confirmation of antibody status would therefore reduce anxiety, provide confidence to allow individuals to relax social distancing measures, and guide policy-makers in the staged release of population lock-down, potentially in tandem with digital approaches to contact tracing.”

The study has been published in the pre-print platform medRxiv.

Tags: coronavirusCOVID-19

ShareTweetShare
Mihai Andrei

Mihai Andrei

Dr. Andrei Mihai is a geophysicist and founder of ZME Science. He has a Ph.D. in geophysics and archaeology and has completed courses from prestigious universities (with programs ranging from climate and astronomy to chemistry and geology). He is passionate about making research more accessible to everyone and communicating news and features to a broad audience.

Related Posts

Diseases

That 2022 Hepatitis Outbreak in Kids? It Was Apparently COVID

byMihai Andrei
1 month ago
Genetics

Finally, mRNA vaccines against cancer are starting to become a reality

byMihai Andrei
2 months ago
Diseases

FLiRT and FLuQE, the new COVID variants making the rounds

byMihai Andrei
10 months ago
Diseases

Moderna’s flu + Covid jab produces “higher immune response” than two separate shots

byMihai Andrei
11 months ago

Recent news

A Massive Brain Study Reveals the Hidden Work Your Mind Does While You Read

May 14, 2025

Scientists Create “Bait” to Lure Baby Corals Back to Dying Reefs

May 14, 2025

A Nearby Star Sings a Stellar Tune, and Scientists can Hear Its Age

May 14, 2025
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Editorial Policy
  • Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • How we review products
  • Contact

© 2007-2025 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Science News
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Space
  • Future
  • Features
    • Natural Sciences
    • Physics
      • Matter and Energy
      • Quantum Mechanics
      • Thermodynamics
    • Chemistry
      • Periodic Table
      • Applied Chemistry
      • Materials
      • Physical Chemistry
    • Biology
      • Anatomy
      • Biochemistry
      • Ecology
      • Genetics
      • Microbiology
      • Plants and Fungi
    • Geology and Paleontology
      • Planet Earth
      • Earth Dynamics
      • Rocks and Minerals
      • Volcanoes
      • Dinosaurs
      • Fossils
    • Animals
      • Mammals
      • Birds
      • Fish
      • Amphibians
      • Reptiles
      • Invertebrates
      • Pets
      • Conservation
      • Animal facts
    • Climate and Weather
      • Climate change
      • Weather and atmosphere
    • Health
      • Drugs
      • Diseases and Conditions
      • Human Body
      • Mind and Brain
      • Food and Nutrition
      • Wellness
    • History and Humanities
      • Anthropology
      • Archaeology
      • History
      • Economics
      • People
      • Sociology
    • Space & Astronomy
      • The Solar System
      • Sun
      • The Moon
      • Planets
      • Asteroids, meteors & comets
      • Astronomy
      • Astrophysics
      • Cosmology
      • Exoplanets & Alien Life
      • Spaceflight and Exploration
    • Technology
      • Computer Science & IT
      • Engineering
      • Inventions
      • Sustainability
      • Renewable Energy
      • Green Living
    • Culture
    • Resources
  • Videos
  • Reviews
  • About Us
    • About
    • The Team
    • Advertise
    • Contribute
    • Editorial policy
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact

© 2007-2025 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.