Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
2.
Ann Med ; 53(1): 34-42, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1574894

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated the diagnostic efficiency of antibody testing in COVID-19 infection. There is limited data on the IgM/IgG changes in asymptomatic and discharged patients with reoccurring positive nucleic acid test (RPNAT). This study aims to investigate these IgM/IgG changes. METHODS: There were 111 patients with positive nucleic acid test (NAT) and 40 suspected patients enrolled in the study. The serum SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM/IgG antibody levels were retrospectively analysed with the disease progress in asymptomatic and RPNAT patients. RESULTS: The best overall performance was found by combining the IgM, IgG, and CT; 95.1% sensitivity and 75% specificity. This was tested in 111 RT-PCR positive cases. The median IgM and IgG levels were lower in the asymptomatic group compared to the symptomatic group (p < .01). Among 15 RPNAT cases, the IgM levels of the RPNAT group at the time of discharge (IgM2.79, IQR: 0.95-5.37) and retest (IgM 2.35, IQR: 0.88-8.65) were significantly higher than those of the non-reoccurring positive nucleic acid test group (Non-RPNAT) (IgM on discharge: 0.59, IQR: 0.33-1.22, IgG on retest: 0.92, IQR: 0.51-1.58). CONCLUSION: Serum SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM/IgG antibody levels remained at a low level during hospitalisation for asymptomatic patients. Elevated IgM levels may have implications in the identification of RPNAT patients before discharge. Key messages This study determined the IgM/IgG changes in asymptomatic and RPNAT patients. The rate of serum SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM/IgG antibody levels increase in the asymptomatic group was lower than in the symptomatic group during hospitalisation. The IgM level did not decrease significantly at discharge in the RPNAT patients, and was higher than that of the Non-RPNAT group on discharge. These results highlight the importance of timely monitoring of IgM levels to identify RPNAT patients before discharge.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Case-Control Studies , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Immunoenzyme Techniques/methods , Male , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
3.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6778-6781, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544295

ABSTRACT

A high-throughput, fully automated antigen detection test for SARS-CoV-2 is a viable alternative to reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) for mass screening during outbreaks. In this study, we compared RT-qPCR for viral load and the VITROS® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test with reference to the results of the LUMIPULSE® SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test. Of 128 nasopharyngeal swab specimens taken from patients suspected of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, 49 were positive and 79 were negative according to RT-qPCR. Consistent dose-dependent detection with VITROS® assay was successfully achieved when using nasopharyngeal swab specimens with Ct values of 32.0 or lesser, whereas the CLEIA-based LUMIPULSE® assay was able to detect lower viral loads compared with the VITROS® assay. Our results show that the performance of the VITROS® assay was satisfactory for the diagnosis of contagious COVID-19 patients in the clinical setting. Highlights The performance of the VITROS® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test was sufficient for the diagnosis of contagious COVID-19. This test showed high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with a Ct value of 32 or less.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , Immunoenzyme Techniques/methods , Immunologic Tests/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antigens, Viral/genetics , Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Nasopharynx/immunology , Nasopharynx/virology , RNA, Viral/genetics , RNA, Viral/immunology , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load/genetics , Viral Load/immunology
4.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6778-6781, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1281221

ABSTRACT

A high-throughput, fully automated antigen detection test for SARS-CoV-2 is a viable alternative to reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) for mass screening during outbreaks. In this study, we compared RT-qPCR for viral load and the VITROS® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test with reference to the results of the LUMIPULSE® SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test. Of 128 nasopharyngeal swab specimens taken from patients suspected of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, 49 were positive and 79 were negative according to RT-qPCR. Consistent dose-dependent detection with VITROS® assay was successfully achieved when using nasopharyngeal swab specimens with Ct values of 32.0 or lesser, whereas the CLEIA-based LUMIPULSE® assay was able to detect lower viral loads compared with the VITROS® assay. Our results show that the performance of the VITROS® assay was satisfactory for the diagnosis of contagious COVID-19 patients in the clinical setting. Highlights The performance of the VITROS® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test was sufficient for the diagnosis of contagious COVID-19. This test showed high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in samples with a Ct value of 32 or less.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , Immunoenzyme Techniques/methods , Immunologic Tests/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antigens, Viral/genetics , Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Nasopharynx/immunology , Nasopharynx/virology , RNA, Viral/genetics , RNA, Viral/immunology , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load/genetics , Viral Load/immunology
5.
J Virol Methods ; 292: 114129, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1144852

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: At present, the only reliable test for COVID-19 diagnosis is RT-qPCR. Serological assays have been widely used to increase the detection sensitivity of infected population. Hereby, we report the performance of a new pan-IgG multiplex Enzyme Immunoassay (immunodot) method for exploration of discrepant SARS-COV-2 serological results. METHODS: A retrospective study on 38 residual serum samples from recovered COVID-19 subjects with discordant serological results on Roche and Snibe platforms, were reanalyzed on a new semi-automated pan-IgG immunodot Enzyme Immunoassay, namely COVIDOT-TEST, in order to find the source of discrepancies and to evaluate the latter method. All samples were analyzed on the BlueDiver® Instrument and all strips were read by the BlueScan® Scanner using Dr DOT® Software. RESULTS: Based on our data, subject samples showed specific IgG reactions on ≥ 2 different antigens on immunodot strips. Of these 38 samples, 97.4 % of samples showed specific IgG reaction against S1 + S2 antigens, 89.5 % showed against RBD antigen, 86.8 % against S2 antigen reaction on the COVIDOT-TEST kit. Specific IgG-S1 antigen and IgG-N antigen reactions were detected in 73.7 % and 65.8 % of the samples, respectively. CONCLUSION: The new semi-automated pan-IgG immunodot Enzyme Immunoassay method appeared to be a reliable assay to confirm suspicious COVID-19 serological screening results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoenzyme Techniques/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Male , Retrospective Studies
7.
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
8.
Ann Med ; 53(1): 34-42, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-720886

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated the diagnostic efficiency of antibody testing in COVID-19 infection. There is limited data on the IgM/IgG changes in asymptomatic and discharged patients with reoccurring positive nucleic acid test (RPNAT). This study aims to investigate these IgM/IgG changes. METHODS: There were 111 patients with positive nucleic acid test (NAT) and 40 suspected patients enrolled in the study. The serum SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM/IgG antibody levels were retrospectively analysed with the disease progress in asymptomatic and RPNAT patients. RESULTS: The best overall performance was found by combining the IgM, IgG, and CT; 95.1% sensitivity and 75% specificity. This was tested in 111 RT-PCR positive cases. The median IgM and IgG levels were lower in the asymptomatic group compared to the symptomatic group (p < .01). Among 15 RPNAT cases, the IgM levels of the RPNAT group at the time of discharge (IgM2.79, IQR: 0.95-5.37) and retest (IgM 2.35, IQR: 0.88-8.65) were significantly higher than those of the non-reoccurring positive nucleic acid test group (Non-RPNAT) (IgM on discharge: 0.59, IQR: 0.33-1.22, IgG on retest: 0.92, IQR: 0.51-1.58). CONCLUSION: Serum SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM/IgG antibody levels remained at a low level during hospitalisation for asymptomatic patients. Elevated IgM levels may have implications in the identification of RPNAT patients before discharge. Key messages This study determined the IgM/IgG changes in asymptomatic and RPNAT patients. The rate of serum SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM/IgG antibody levels increase in the asymptomatic group was lower than in the symptomatic group during hospitalisation. The IgM level did not decrease significantly at discharge in the RPNAT patients, and was higher than that of the Non-RPNAT group on discharge. These results highlight the importance of timely monitoring of IgM levels to identify RPNAT patients before discharge.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Case-Control Studies , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Immunoenzyme Techniques/methods , Male , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
9.
J Infect Dis ; 222(2): 189-193, 2020 06 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-643587

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel ß-coronavirus, causes severe pneumonia and has spread throughout the globe rapidly. The disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To date, real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the only test able to confirm this infection. However, the accuracy of RT-PCR depends on several factors; variations in these factors might significantly lower the sensitivity of detection. METHODS: In this study, we developed a peptide-based luminescent immunoassay that detected immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgM. The assay cutoff value was determined by evaluating the sera from healthy and infected patients for pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: To evaluate assay performance, we detected IgG and IgM in the sera from confirmed patients. The positive rate of IgG and IgM was 71.4% and 57.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, combining our immunoassay with real-time RT-PCR might enhance the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Immunoenzyme Techniques/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Serologic Tests/methods , Adult , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Luminescent Measurements , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Peptides/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Proteins/immunology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL