Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM antibody tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA in COVID-19 patients.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in COVID-19 patients. METHODS:Specificity was evaluated in 103 samples collected before January 2020. Sensitivity and time to seropositivity was evaluated in 167 samples from 94 patients with COVID-19 confirmed with RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab. RESULTS:Specificity (confidence interval) of lateral flow assays (LFAs) was ?91.3% (84.0-95.5) for IgM, ?90.3% (82.9-94.8) for IgG, and ?85.4% (77.2-91.1) for the combination IgM OR IgG. Specificity of the ELISA was 96.1% (90.1-98.8) for IgG and only 73.8% (64.5-81.4) for IgA. Sensitivity 14-25 days after the onset of symptoms was between ?92.1% (78.5-98.0) and 100% (95.7-100) for IgG LFA compared to 89.5% (75.3-96.4) for IgG ELISA. Positivity of IgM OR IgG for LFA resulted in a decrease in specificity compared to IgG alone without a gain in diagnostic performance, except for VivaDiag. The results for IgM varied significantly between the LFAs with an average overall agreement of only 70% compared to 89% for IgG. The average dynamic trend to seropositivity for IgM was not shorter than for IgG. At the time of hospital admission the sensitivity of LFA was <60%. CONCLUSIONS:Sensitivity for the detection of IgG antibodies 14-25 days after the onset of symptoms was ?92.1% for all seven LFAs compared to 89.5% for the IgG ELISA. The results for IgM varied significantly, and including IgM antibodies in addition to IgG for the interpretation of LFAs did not improve the diagnostic performance.

SUBMITTER: Van Elslande J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7255746 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM antibody tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA in COVID-19 patients.

Van Elslande J J Houben E E Depypere M M Brackenier A A Desmet S S André E E Van Ranst M M Lagrou K K Vermeersch P P

Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 20200528 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in COVID-19 patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Specificity was evaluated in 103 samples collected before January 2020. Sensitivity and time to seropositivity was evaluated in 167 samples from 94 patients with COVID-19 confirmed with RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab.<h4>Results</h4>Specificity (confidence inte ...[more]

PMID: 32473953

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2) is responsible for the infectious respiratory disease called COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019). In response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic, point-of-care (POC) tests have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood. We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the performance of two POC tests, COVID-PRESTO® and COVID-DUO®, compared to the gold standard, RT-PCR (real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction).MethodsRT-PCR testing of SARS-Cov-2 was performed from nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected in adult patients visiting the infectious disease department at the hospital (Orléans, France). Capillary whole blood (CWB) samples from the fingertip taken at different time points after onset of the disease were tested with POC tests. The specificity and sensitivity of the rapid test kits compared to test of reference (RT-PCR) were calculated.ResultsAmong 381 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who went to the hospital for a diagnostic, 143 patients were RT-PCR negative. Results of test with POC tests were all negative for these patients, indicating a specificity of 100% for both POC tests. In the RT-PCR positive subgroup (n = 238), 133 patients were tested with COVID-PRESTO® and 129 patients were tested with COVID-DUO® (24 patients tested with both). The further the onset of symptoms was from the date of collection, the greater the sensitivity. The sensitivity of COVID-PRESTO® test ranged from 10.00% for patients having experienced their 1st symptoms from 0 to 5 days ago to 100% in patients where symptoms had occurred more than 15 days before the date of tests. For COVID-DUO® test, the sensitivity ranged from 35.71% [0-5 days] to 100% (> 15 days).ConclusionCOVID-PRESTO® and DUO® POC tests turned out to be very specific (none false positive) and to be sensitive enough after 15 days from onset of symptom. These easy to use IgG/IgM combined test kits are the first ones allowing a screening with CWB sample, by typing from a finger prick. These rapid tests are particularly interesting for screening in low resource settings.

Project description:Unlike immunoglobulin (Ig)G pneumococcal polysaccharide (PnPS)-antibodies, PnPS IgA and IgM-antibodies are not routinely determined for the assessment of immunocompetence. It is not yet known whether an isolated inability to mount a normal IgM or IgA-PnPS response should be considered a relevant primary antibody deficiency (PAD). We studied the clinical relevance of anti-PnPS IgM and IgA-assays in patients with suspected primary immunodeficiency in a large teaching hospital in 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands. Serotype-specific-PnPS IgG assays were performed; subsequently, 23-valent-PnPS IgG assays (anti-PnPS IgG assays), and later anti-PnPS IgA and IgM assays, were performed in archived material (240 patients; 304 samples). Eleven of 65 pre- and six of 10 post-immunization samples from good responders to PnPS serotype-specific IgG testing had decreased anti-PnPS IgA and/or IgM titres. Of these, three pre- and no post-immunization samples were from patients previously classified as 'no PAD'. Determination of anti-PnPS IgA and IgM in addition to anti-PnPS IgG did not reduce the need for serotype-specific PnPS IgG testing to assess immunocompetence [receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of post-immunization samples: anti-PnPS IgA + IgG area under the curve (AUC) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.63-0.97; anti-PnPS IgM + IgG AUC 0.80, 95% CI = 0.62-0.98; anti-PnPS IgA + IgG + IgM AUC = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.51-0.91; anti-PnPS IgG AUC = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.85-1.00]. Our data show that patients classified as having an intact antibody response based on measurement of serotype-specific PnPS IgG can still display impaired anti-PnPS IgM and IgA responses, and that the additional measurement of anti-PnPS IgA and IgM could not reduce the need for serotype-specific IgG testing. Future studies are needed to investigate the clinical relevance of potential 'specific IgA or IgM antibody deficiency' in patients with recurrent airway infections in whom no PAD could be diagnosed according to the current definitions.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM antibody tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA in COVID-19 patients.

Publications

Diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM antibody tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA in COVID-19 patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets