Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Performance of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests: Are they good enough?
Piec, Isabelle; English, Emma; Thomas, Mary Annette; Dervisevic, Samir; Fraser, William D; John, William Garry.
  • Piec I; BioAnalytical Facility, Faculty of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
  • English E; Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
  • Thomas MA; WEQAS, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
  • Dervisevic S; Virology Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, Norwich, United Kingdom.
  • Fraser WD; BioAnalytical Facility, Faculty of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
  • John WG; Clinical Biochemistry Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, Norwich, United Kingdom.
PLoS One ; 16(2): e0245914, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1088751
Preprint
Este artículo de revista científica es probablemente basado en un preprint previamente disponible, por medio del reconocimiento de similitud realizado por una máquina. La confirmación humana aún está pendiente.
Ver preprint
ABSTRACT
In the emergency of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, great efforts were made to quickly provide serology testing to the medical community however, these methods have been introduced into clinical practice without the complete validation usually required by the regulatory organizations. SARS-CoV-2 patient samples (n = 43) were analyzed alongside pre-pandemic control specimen (n = 50), confirmed respiratory infections (n = 50), inflammatory polyarthritis (n = 22) and positive for thyroid stimulating immunoglobulin (n = 30). Imprecision, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity and concordance were evaluated on IgG serologic assays from EuroImmun, Epitope Diagnostics (EDI), Abbott Diagnostics and DiaSorin and a rapid IgG/IgM test from Healgen. EDI and EuroImmun imprecision was 0.02-14.0% CV. Abbott and DiaSorin imprecision (CV) ranged from 5.2%-8.1% and 8.2%-9.6% respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity of the assays was 100% (CI 80-100%) for Abbott, EDI and EuroImmun and 95% (CI 73-100%) for DiaSorin at ≥14 days post PCR. Only the Abbott assay had a diagnostic specificity of 100% (CI 91-100%). EuroImmun cross-reacted in 3 non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections and 2 controls. The DiaSorin displayed more false negative results and cross-reacted in six cases across all conditions tested. EDI had one cross-reactive sample. The Healgen rapid test showed excellent sensitivity and specificity. Overall, concordance of the assays ranged from 76.1% to 97.9%. Serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 showed good analytical performance. The head-to-head analysis of samples revealed differences in results that may be linked to the use of nucleocapsid or spike proteins. The point of care device tested demonstrated adequate performance for antibody detection.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: Disponible Colección: Bases de datos internacionales Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Prueba Serológica para COVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Estudios diagnósticos / Estudio experimental / Estudio observacional / Estudio pronóstico / Ensayo controlado aleatorizado Límite: Humanos País/Región como asunto: America del Sur / Brasil Idioma: Inglés Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: Ciencia / Medicina Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Artículo País de afiliación: Journal.pone.0245914

Similares

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Texto completo: Disponible Colección: Bases de datos internacionales Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Prueba Serológica para COVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Estudios diagnósticos / Estudio experimental / Estudio observacional / Estudio pronóstico / Ensayo controlado aleatorizado Límite: Humanos País/Región como asunto: America del Sur / Brasil Idioma: Inglés Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: Ciencia / Medicina Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Artículo País de afiliación: Journal.pone.0245914