Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science ; 12(7):78-87, 2022.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1954734

ABSTRACT

The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) pandemic’s global regulatory authorities are issuing provisional market authorization to current public health for timely detection of COVID-19 infections based on the analytical performance data, limited clinical performance data, and manufacturers’ declarations. Importers, local manufacturers, government procurement agencies, and other stakeholders should be made aware of the regulatory process for market authorization of COVID-19 in vitro diagnostic (IVD) kits in India. The objective is to study in detail about COVID-19 IVD guidelines. Concentrating on the recent updates in COVID-19 IVD guidelines, we analyze the necessity for India to become efficient in manufacturing SARS-CoV-2 IVDs. In India, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) coordination with The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is committed to ensuring the rapid availability of diagnostic tests for COVID-19. To address the urgent need for timely detection of COVID-19 infection, it is important to scale-up the testing capacity to maximum possible levels according to the CDSCO interim licensing process. This has helped to timely expand the variety of quality diagnostic tests available in India. The regulatory tools described in this article are made based on a comparison of data available on the procedure, followed by other major countries under the health emergency without compromising on the quality of the product within the existing provisions given in the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and Medical Devices Rules 2017. © 2022

2.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(2)2021 01 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1041793

ABSTRACT

Numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid serological tests have been developed, but their accuracy has usually been assessed using very few samples, and rigorous comparisons between these tests are scarce. In this study, we evaluated and compared 10 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests using the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) methodology. Two hundred fifty serum samples from 159 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected 0 to 32 days after the onset of symptoms) were tested with rapid serological tests. Control serum samples (n = 254) were retrieved from pre-coronavirus disease (COVID) periods from patients with other coronavirus infections (n = 11), positivity for rheumatoid factors (n = 3), IgG/IgM hyperglobulinemia (n = 9), malaria (n = 5), or no documented viral infection (n = 226). All samples were tested using rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) from 10 manufacturers. Only four tests achieved ≥98% specificity, with the specificities ranging from 75.7% to 99.2%. The sensitivities varied by the day of sample collection after the onset of symptoms, from 31.7% to 55.4% (days 0 to 9), 65.9% to 92.9% (days 10 to 14), and 81.0% to 95.2% (>14 days). Only three of the tests evaluated met French health authorities' thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 serological tests (≥90% sensitivity and ≥98% specificity). Overall, the performances varied greatly between tests, with only one-third meeting acceptable specificity and sensitivity thresholds. Knowledge of the analytical performances of these tests will allow clinicians and, most importantly, laboratorians to use them with more confidence; could help determine the general population's immunological status; and may help diagnose some patients with false-negative real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/pathology , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Female , Humans , Immunoassay , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
Clin Chem Lab Med ; 58(7): 1081-1088, 2020 06 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-937249

ABSTRACT

Background Coronavirus disease 2019, abbreviated to COVID-19, represents an emerging health threat worldwide as, after initial reports in China, it has continued to spread rapidly. The clinical spectrum of the disease varies from mild to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Moreover, many patients can be asymptomatic, thus increasing the uncertainty of the diagnostic work-up. Laboratory tests play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19, the current gold standard being real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) on respiratory tract specimens. However, the diagnostic accuracy of rRT-PCR depends on many pre-analytical and analytical variables. The measurement of specific COVID-19 antibodies (both IgG and IgM) should serve as an additional, non-invasive tool for disease detection and management. Methods The imprecision of the MAGLUMI™ 2000 Plus 2019-nCov IgM and IgG assays (Snibe, Shenzhen, China) was assessed by adopting the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) EP15-A3 protocol. Linearity of dilution and recovery was evaluated by means of mixes of high-level pools and low-level pools of serum samples. Immunoglobulin time kinetics were evaluated using a series of serum samples, repeatedly collected from COVID-19-positive patients at different times, from <5 days up to 26-30 days. Results Findings at the analytical validation of the assay carried out according to the CLSI EP15-A3 guideline demonstrated that imprecision and repeatability were acceptable (repeatability was <4% and <6% for IgM and IgG, respectively, whilst intermediate imprecision was <6%). In addition, results of dilution and recovery studies were satisfactory. The kinetics of COVID-19 antibodies confirmed previously reported findings, showing a rapid increase of both IgM and IgG after 6-7 days from the symptom onset. IgG had 100% sensitivity on day 12, whilst 88% was the higher positive rate achieved for IgM after the same time interval. Conclusions The findings of this study demonstrate the validity of the MAGLUMI 2000 Plus CLIA assay for the measurement of specific IgM and IgG in sera of COVID-19 patients, and for obtaining valuable data on the kinetics of both (IgM and IgG) COVID-19 antibodies. These data represent a pre-requisite for the appropriate utilization of specific antibodies for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Immunoenzyme Techniques/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 , China , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Immunoglobulin M/immunology , Kinetics , Luminescent Measurements/methods , Pandemics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL