Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Añadir filtros

Base de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año
1.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ; 40(10): 2235-2241, 2021 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1156953

RESUMEN

We report evaluation of 30 assays' (17 rapid tests (RDTs) and 13 automated/manual ELISA/CLIA assay (IAs)) clinical performances with 2594 sera collected from symptomatic patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR on a respiratory sample, and 1996 pre-epidemic serum samples expected to be negative. Only 4 RDT and 3 IAs fitted both specificity (> 98%) and sensitivity (> 90%) criteria according to French recommendations. Serology may offer valuable information during COVID-19 pandemic, but inconsistent performances observed among the 30 commercial assays evaluated, which underlines the importance of independent evaluation before clinical implementation.


Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Prueba Serológica para COVID-19/métodos , COVID-19/sangre , Inmunoensayo/métodos , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , COVID-19/virología , Humanos , Inmunoensayo/economía , Inmunoglobulina M/sangre , Juego de Reactivos para Diagnóstico , SARS-CoV-2/genética , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
2.
J Clin Virol ; 132: 104618, 2020 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-741331

RESUMEN

The aim of this study was to assess the analytical performances, sensitivity and specificity, of two rapid tests (Covid- Presto® test rapid Covid-19 IgG/IgM and NG-Test® IgM-IgG COVID-19) and one automated immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) for detecting anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. This study was performed with: (i) a positive panel constituted of 88 SARS-CoV-2 specimens collected from patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, and (ii) a negative panel of 120 serum samples, all collected before November 2019, including 64 samples with a cross-reactivity panel. Sensitivity of Covid-Presto® test for IgM and IgG was 78.4% and 92.0%, respectively. Sensitivity of NG-Test® for IgM and IgG was 96.6% and 94.9%, respectively. Sensitivity of Abbott IgG assay was 96.5% showing an excellent agreement with the two rapid tests (κ = 0.947 and κ = 0.936 for NGTest ® and Covid-Presto® test, respectively). An excellent agreement was also observed between the two rapid tests (κ = 0.937). Specificity for IgM was 100% and 86.5% for Covid-Presto® test and NG-Test®, respectively. Specificity for IgG was 92.0%, 94.9% and 96.5% for Covid-Presto®, NGTest ®, and Abbott, respectively. Most of the false positive results observed with NG-Test® resulted from samples containing malarial antibodies. In conclusion, performances of these 2 rapid tests are very good and comparable to those obtained with automated immunoassay, except for IgM specificity with the NG-Test®. Thus, isolated IgM should be cautiously interpreted due to the possible false-positive reactions with this test. Finally, before their large use, the rapid tests must be reliably evaluated with adequate and large panel including early seroconversion and possible cross-reactive samples.


Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Prueba de COVID-19/métodos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Inmunoensayo/métodos , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina G/sangre , Inmunoglobulina M/sangre , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA