Dataset Information

Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 presenting to the hospital.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To assess the diagnostic performance of rapid lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) compared with an ELISA and nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) in individuals with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS:Patients presenting to a Dutch teaching hospital were eligible between 17 March and 10 April 2020, when they had respiratory symptoms that were suspected for COVID-19. The performances of six different LFAs were evaluated in plasma samples obtained on corresponding respiratory sample dates of NATs testing. Subsequently, the best performing LFA was evaluated in 228 patients and in 50 sera of a historical patient control group. RESULTS:In the pilot analysis, sensitivity characteristics of LFA were heterogeneous, ranging from 2/20 (10%; 95% CI 0%-23%) to 11/20 (55%; 95% CI 33%-77%). In the total cohort, Orient Gene Biotech COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test LFA had a sensitivity of 43/99 (43%; 95% CI 34%-53%) and specificity of 126/129 (98%; 95% CI 95%-100%). Sensitivity increased to 31/52 (60%; 95% CI 46%-73%) in patients with at least 7 days of symptoms, and to 21/33 (64%; 95% CI 47%-80%) in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) ?100 mg/L. Sensitivity and specificity of Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA was 59/95 (62%; 95% CI 52%-72%) and 125/128 (98%; 95% CI 95%-100%) in all patients, respectively, but sensitivity increased to 38/48 (79%; 95% CI 68%-91%) in patients with at least 7 days of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:There is large variability in diagnostic test performance between rapid LFAs, but overall limited sensitivity and high specificity in acutely admitted patients. Sensitivity improved in patients with longer existing symptoms or high CRP. LFAs should only be considered as additional triage tools when these may lead to the improvement of hospital logistics.

SUBMITTER: Ong DSY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7265854 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 presenting to the hospital.

Ong D S Y DSY de Man S J SJ Lindeboom F A FA Koeleman J G M JGM

Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 20200602 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the diagnostic performance of rapid lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) compared with an ELISA and nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) in individuals with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).<h4>Methods</h4>Patients presenting to a Dutch teaching hospital were eligible between 17 March and 10 April 2020, when they had respiratory symptoms that were suspected for COVID-19. The performances of six different LFAs were evaluated in plasma sampl ...[more]

PMID: 32502646

Similar Datasets

Project description:Serological testing is recommended to support the detection of undiagnosed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, the performance of serological assays has not been sufficiently evaluated. Hence, the performance of six severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) binding antibody assays [three chemiluminescence (CLIAs) and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)] and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was analyzed in a total of 988 serum samples comprising 389 COVID-19-positives and 599 COVID-19-negatives. The overall diagnostic sensitivities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 54.2 to 56.6% and from 56.3 to 64.3%, respectively. The overall diagnostic specificities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 98.2 to 99.8% and from 97.3 to 99.0%, respectively. In the symptomatic group (n = 321), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 14 days after symptom onset. In the asymptomatic group (n = 68), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 21 days after initial RT-PCR detection. In LFIAs, negatively interpreted trace bands accounted for the changes in test performance. Most false-positive results were weak or trace reactions and showed negative results in additional sVNT. For six binding antibody assays, the overall agreement percentages ranged from 91.0 to 97.8%. The median inhibition activity of sVNT was significantly higher in the symptomatic group than in the asymptomatic group (50.0% vs. 29.2%; p < 0.0001). The median times to seropositivity in the symptomatic group were 9.7 days for CLIA-IgG, 9.2 and 9.8 days for two CLIAs-Total (IgM + IgG), 7.7 days for LFIA-IgM, 9.2 days for LFIA-IgG, and 8.8 days for sVNT-IgG, respectively. There was a strong positive correlation between the quantitative results of the four binding antibody assays and sVNT with Spearman ρ-values ranging from 0.746 to 0.854. In particular, when using LFIAs, we recommend using more objective interpretable assays or establishing a band interpretation system for each laboratory, accompanied by observer training. We also anticipate that sVNT will play an essential role in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and become the practical routine neutralizing antibody assay.

Project description:ObjectiveTo conduct a multireader validation study to evaluate the interobserver variability and the diagnostic accuracy for the lung involvement by COVID-19 of COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) score.MethodsThis retrospective study included consecutive symptomatic patients who underwent chest CT and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from March 2020 to May 2020 for suspected COVID-19. Twelve readers with different levels of expertise independently scored each CT using the CO-RADS scheme for detecting pulmonary involvement by COVID-19. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were computed to investigate diagnostic yield. Fleiss' kappa statistics was used to evaluate interreader agreement.ResultsA total of 572 patients (mean age, 63 ± 20 [standard deviation]; 329 men; 142 patients with COVID-19 and 430 patients without COVID-19) were evaluated. There was a moderate agreement for CO-RADS rating among all readers (Fleiss' K = 0.43 [95% CI 0.42-0.44]) with a substantial agreement for CO-RADS 1 category (Fleiss' K = 0.61 [95% CI 0.60-0.62]) and moderate agreement for CO-RADS 5 category (Fleiss' K = 0.60 [95% CI 0.58-0.61]). ROC analysis showed the CO-RADS score ≥ 4 as the optimal threshold, with a cumulative area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 66-78%), sensitivity 61% (95% CI 52-69%), and specificity 81% (95% CI 77-84%).ConclusionCO-RADS showed high diagnostic accuracy and moderate interrater agreement across readers with different levels of expertise. Specificity is higher than previously thought and that could lead to reconsider the role of CT in this clinical setting.Key points• COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) demonstrated a good diagnostic accuracy for lung involvement by COVID-19 with an average AUC of 0.72 (95% CI 67-75%). • When a threshold of ≥ 4 was used, sensitivity and specificity were 61% (95% CI 52-69%) and 81% (95% CI 76-84%), respectively. • There was an overall moderate agreement for CO-RADS rating across readers with different levels of expertise (Fleiss' K = 0.43 [95% CI 0.42-0.44]).

Dataset Information

Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 presenting to the hospital.

Publications

Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 presenting to the hospital.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets