Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

25 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Diagnostic performance of commercially available COVID-19 serology tests in Brazil.

ABSTRACT: Timely and accurate laboratory testing is essential for managing the global COVID-19 pandemic. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction remains the gold-standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, but several practical issues limit the test's use. Immunoassays have been indicated as an alternative for individual and mass testing.

Objectives

To access the performance of 12 serological tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Methods

We conducted a blind evaluation of six lateral-flow immunoassays (LFIAs) and six enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) commercially available in Brazil for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Results

Considering patients with seven or more days of symptoms, the sensitivity ranged from 59.5% to 83.1% for LFIAs and from 50.7% to 92.6% for ELISAs. For both methods, the sensitivity increased with clinical severity and days of symptoms. The agreement among LFIAs performed with digital blood and serum was moderate. Specificity was, in general, higher for LFIAs than for ELISAs. Infectious diseases prevalent in the tropics, such as HIV, leishmaniasis, arboviruses, and malaria, represent conditions with the potential to cause false-positive results with these tests, which significantly compromises their specificity.

Conclusion

The performance of immunoassays was only moderate, affected by the duration and clinical severity of the disease. Absence of discriminatory power between IgM/IgA and IgG has also been demonstrated, which prevents the use of acute-phase antibodies for decisions on social isolation.

SUBMITTER: Cota G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7544564 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Performance differences among commercially available antigen rapid tests for COVID-19 in Brazil

Project description:A rapid and accurate diagnosis is a crucial strategy for containing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Considering the obstacles to upscaling the use of RT–qPCR, rapid tests based on antigen detection (Ag-RDT) have become an alternative to enhance mass testing, reducing the time for a prompt diagnosis and virus spreading. However, the performances of several commercially available Ag-RDTs have not yet been evaluated in several countries. Here, we evaluate the performance of eight Ag-RDTs available in Brazil to diagnose COVID-19. Patients admitted to tertiary hospitals with moderate or mild COVID-19 symptoms and presenting risk factors for severe disease were included. The tests were performed using a masked protocol, strictly following the manufacturer’s recommendations and were compared with RT–qPCR. The overall sensitivity of the tests ranged from 9.8 to 81.1%, and specificity greater than 83% was observed for all the evaluated tests. Overall, slight or fair agreement was observed between Ag-RDTs and RT–PCR, except for the Ag-RDT COVID-19 (Acro Biotech), in which moderate agreement was observed. Lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs was observed for patients with cycle threshold > 25, indicating that the sensitivity was directly affected by viral load, whereas the effect of the disease duration was unclear. Despite the lower sensitivity of Ag-RDTs compared with RT–qPCR, its easy fulfillment and promptness still justify its use, even at hospital admission. However, the main advantage of Ag-RDTs seems to be the possibility of increasing access to the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with a high viral load, allowing immediate clinical management and reduction of infectivity and community transmission.

| S-EPMC9202877 | biostudies-literature

Summarizing Study Characteristics and Diagnostic Performance of Commercially Available Tests for Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Scoping Literature Review in the COVID-19 Era.

Project description:BackgroundNonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 also decreased the spread of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. Viral diagnostic testing in patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) is a necessary tool for patient management; therefore, sensitive and specific tests are required. This scoping literature review aimed to summarize the study characteristics of commercially available sample-to-answer RSV tests.ContentPubMed and Embase were queried for studies reporting on the diagnostic performance of tests for RSV in patients with RTI (published January 2005-January 2021). Information on study design, patient and setting characteristics, and published diagnostic performance of RSV tests were extracted from 77 studies that met predefined inclusion criteria. A literature gap was identified for studies of RSV tests conducted in adult-only populations (5.3% of total subrecords) and in outpatient (7.5%) or household (0.8%) settings. Overall, RSV tests with analytical time >30 min had higher published sensitivity (62.5%-100%) vs RSV tests with analytical time ≤30 min (25.7%-100%); this sensitivity range could be partially attributed to the different modalities (antigen vs molecular) used. Molecular-based rapid RSV tests had higher published sensitivity (66.7%-100%) and specificity (94.3%-100%) than antigen-based RSV tests (sensitivity: 25.7%-100%; specificity:80.3%-100%).SummaryThis scoping review reveals a paucity of literature on studies of RSV tests in specific populations and settings, highlighting the need for further assessments. Considering the implications of these results in the current pandemic landscape, the authors preliminarily suggest adopting molecular-based RSV tests for first-line use in these settings.

| S-EPMC9384538 | biostudies-literature

Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serology tests for COVID-19: impact of assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals.

Project description:Serology detection is recognized for its sensitivity in convalescent patients with COVID-19, in comparison with nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). This article aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serologic methods for COVID-19 based on assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals. Two authors independently searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Ovid, EBSCO for case-control, longitudinal and cohort studies that determined the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests in comparison with NAATs in COVID-19 cases and used QUADAS-2 for quality assessment. Pooled accuracy was analysed using INLA method. A total of 27 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with 4 cohort, 16 case-control and 7 longitudinal studies and 4565 participants. Serology tests had the lowest sensitivity at 0-7 days after symptom onset and the highest at >14 days. TAB had a better sensitivity than IgG or IgM only. Using combined nucleocapsid (N) and spike(S) protein had a better sensitivity compared to N or S protein only. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) had a lower sensitivity than enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA). Serology tests will play an important role in the clinical diagnosis for later stage COVID-19 patients. ELISA tests, detecting TAB or targeting combined N and S proteins had a higher diagnostic sensitivity compared to other methods.

| S-EPMC7580610 | biostudies-literature

Commercially available tests for determining cefiderocol susceptibility display variable performance in the Achromobacter genus.

Project description:BackgroundCefiderocol is a siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin increasingly used in the management of Achromobacter infections. Testing for cefiderocol susceptibility is challenging with distinct recommendations depending on the pathogens.ObjectivesWe evaluated the performance of commercial tests for testing cefiderocol susceptibility in the Achromobacter genus and reviewed the literature.MethodsDiffusion (disks, MIC gradient test strips [MTS], Liofilchem) and broth microdilution (BMD) methods (ComASP™, Liofilchem; UMIC®, Bruker) were compared with the BMD reference method according to the EUCAST guidelines on 143 Achromobacter strains from 14 species with MIC50/90 of ≤ 0.015/0.5 mg/L. A literature search was conducted regardless of method or species.ResultsNone of the methods tested fulfilled an acceptable essential agreement (EA). MTS displayed the lowest EA (30.8%) after UMIC® (49%) and ComASP™ (76.9%). All methods achieved an acceptable bias, with MICs either underestimated using MTS (-1.3%) and ComASP™ (-14.2%) or overestimated with UMIC® (+ 9.1%). Inhibition zone diameters ranged from 6 to 38 mm (IZD50/90=33/30 mm). UMIC® and ComASP™ failed to categorize one or the two cefiderocol-resistant strains of this study as resistant unlike the diffusion-based methods. The literature review highlighted distinct performance of the available methods according to pathogens and testing conditions.ConclusionsThe use of MTS is discouraged for Achromobacter spp. Disk diffusion can be used to screen for susceptible strains by setting a threshold diameter of 30 mm. UMIC® and ComASP™ should not be used as the sole method but have to be systematically associated with disk diffusion to detect the yet rarely described cefiderocol-resistant Achromobacter sp. strains.

| S-EPMC11342684 | biostudies-literature

Analytical reactivity of 13 commercially available rapid influenza diagnostic tests with H3N2v and recently circulating influenza viruses.

Project description:Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) used widely in clinical practice are simple to use and provide results within 15 minutes; however, reported performance is variable, which causes concern when novel or variant viruses emerge. This study's goal was to assess the analytical reactivity of 13 RIDTs with recently circulating seasonal and H3N2v influenza viruses, using three different viral measures.Virus stocks were characterized by infectious dose (ID50 ) and nucleoprotein (NP) concentration, diluted at half-log dilutions, and tested with each RIDT and real-time RT-PCR.Strong correlation was observed between NP concentration and RIDT reactivity; however, only weak correlation was seen with ID50 or Ct values. Only four RIDTs detected viral NP at the lowest dilution for all influenza A viruses (IAV). Influenza A viruses not detected by more than one RIDT had lower NP levels. Of the 13 RIDTs, 9 had no significant differences in reactivity across IAV when compared to NP levels.Previous reports of RIDT performance typically compare reactivity based on ID50 titers, which in this study correlated only weakly with proportional amounts of viral NP in prepared virus samples. In the context of the strong correlation of RIDT reactivity with NP concentration, H3N2v was found to be as reactive as seasonal circulating IAV. While these findings may not reflect clinical performance of these RIDTs, measuring NP concentration can be useful in the future to assess comparable reactivity of available RIDTs, or to assess reactivity with newly evolving or emerging viruses.

| S-EPMC4181808 | biostudies-other

Diagnostic Accuracy of Commercially Available Automated External Defibrillators.

Project description:Although automated external defibrillators (AEDs) have contributed to a better survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, there have been reports of their malfunctioning. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available AEDs using surface ECGs of ventricular fibrillation (VF), ventricular tachycardia (VT), and supraventricular tachycardia (SVT).ECGs(VF 31, VT 48, SVT 97) were stored during electrophysiological studies and transmitted to 4 AEDs, the LifePak CR Plus (CR Plus), HeartStart FR3 (FR3), and CardioLife AED-2150 (CL2150) and -9231 (CL9231), through the pad electrode cables. For VF, the CL2150 and CL9231 advised shocks in all cases, and the CR Plus and FR3 advised shocks in all but one VF case. For VTs faster than 180 bpm, the ratios for advising shocks were 79%, 36%, 89%, and 96% for the CR Plus, FR3, CL2150, and CL9231, respectively. The FR3 and CR Plus did not advise shocks for narrow QRS SVTs, whereas the CL9231 tended to treat high-rate tachycardias faster than 180 bpm even with narrow QRS complexes. The characteristics of the shock advice for the FR3 differed from that for the CL9231 (kappa coefficient [κ]=0.479, P<0.001), and the CR Plus and CL2150 had characteristics somewhere between the 2 former AEDs (κ=0.818, P<0.001).Commercially available AEDs diagnosed VF almost always correctly. For VT and SVT diagnoses, a discrepancy was evident among the 4 investigated AEDs. The differences in the arrhythmia diagnosis algorithms for differentiating SVT from VT were thought to account for these differences.

| S-EPMC4845298 | biostudies-other

Pitfalls of commercially available HPV tests in HPV68a detection.

Project description:BackgroundHuman papillomavirus 68 (HPV68) is a probable carcinogenic HPV genotype which is included in almost all HPV screening assays and exists as two genetically variable subtypes (HPV68a and HPV68b). Routine HPV sample testing has shown that the cobas 4800 HPV Test (Roche) provides higher false-negative rates for HPV68 status than PapilloCheck HPV-Screening (Greiner Bio-One). The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of cobas 4800 in HPV68 detection.MethodsA total of 2,145 cervical/cervicovaginal samples from women aged 17-88 were tested for HPV68 status using the cobas 4800 and PapilloCheck HPV tests. Viral load was assessed by quantitative PCR in all of the HPV68-positive cases. HPV68a/b subtyping was performed with real-time PCR followed by high resolution melting curve analysis, and was subsequently confirmed by Sanger sequencing.ResultsCobas 4800 detected HPV positivity in only 13/33 HPV68 single-genotype infection cases. Viral load was comparable across both tested subgroups. HRM analysis and Sanger sequencing identified the HPV68a subtype in all of the 20 instances of cobas 4800 false negatives. HPV68a and HPV68b were detected in 3/13 and 10/13 cases identified as other HPV-positive by cobas 4800.ConclusionThe HPV68a subtype was missed by cobas 4800 in more than 85% of all HPV68a-positive cases. Therefore, commercially available assays may underestimate HPV68 prevalence.

| S-EPMC6681972 | biostudies-literature

Considerations for diagnostic COVID-19 tests.

Project description:During the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, design, development, validation, verification and implementation of diagnostic tests were actively addressed by a large number of diagnostic test manufacturers. Hundreds of molecular tests and immunoassays were rapidly developed, albeit many still await clinical validation and formal approval. In this Review, we summarize the crucial role of diagnostic tests during the first global wave of COVID-19. We explore the technical and implementation problems encountered during this early phase in the pandemic, and try to define future directions for the progressive and better use of (syndromic) diagnostics during a possible resurgence of COVID-19 in future global waves or regional outbreaks. Continuous global improvement in diagnostic test preparedness is essential for more rapid detection of patients, possibly at the point of care, and for optimized prevention and treatment, in both industrialized countries and low-resource settings.

| S-EPMC7556561 | biostudies-literature

Performance of serological tests available in Brazil for the diagnosis of human visceral leishmaniasis.

Project description:BackgroundVisceral leishmaniasis (VL) is the most severe form of leishmaniasis and is potentially fatal if not diagnosed and treated. Accurate and timely diagnosis is considered one of the pillars needed for the reduction in disease-related lethality. Brazil is currently one of the three eco-epidemiological hotspots for this disease. Several serological tests are commercially available in this country for VL diagnosis, although information on the performance of these tests is fragmented and insufficient. The aim of this study was to directly compare the performance of six commercial kits: three enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), two immunofluorescence antibody tests (IFATs), one immunochromatographic test (ICT), besides one ICT, currently not commercially available in Brazil and one in-house direct agglutination test (DAT-LPC), not yet marketed.Methodology/principal findingsA panel of 236 stored samples from patients with clinically suspected VL, including 77 HIV-infected patients, was tested. IT-LEISH and DAT-LPC showed the highest accuracy rate among the non-HIV-infected patients, 96.2% [CI95%: 92.8-99.7%] and 95.6% [CI95%: 91.9-99.3%], respectively. For the ELISA tests evaluated, the maximum accuracy was 91.2%, and in the inter HIV-status group analysis, no significant differences were observed. For both IFATs evaluated, the maximum accuracy was 84.3%, and a lower accuracy rate was observed among the HIV-infected patients (p = 0.039) than among the non-HIV-infected patients. The DAT-LPC was the most accurate test in the HIV-infected patients (p≤0.115). In general, no significant difference in accuracy was observed among the VL-suspected patients stratified by age.Conclusions/significanceIn summary, the differences in the performance of the tests available for VL in Brazil confirm the need for local studies before defining the diagnostic strategy.

| S-EPMC6638734 | biostudies-literature

Diagnostic accuracy of Augurix COVID-19 IgG serology rapid test.

Project description:AimsTo validate the diagnostic accuracy of the Augurix SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG rapid immunoassay diagnostic test (RDT) for COVID-19.MethodsIn this unmatched 1:1 case-control study, blood samples from 46 real-time RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized cases and 45 healthy donors (negative controls) were studied. Diagnostic accuracy of the IgG RDT was assessed against both an in-house recombinant spike-expressing immunofluorescence assay (rIFA), as an established reference method (primary endpoint), and the Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (secondary endpoint).ResultsCOVID-19 patients were more likely to be male (61% vs 20%; P = .0001) and older (median 66 vs 47 years old; P < .001) than controls. Whole blood IgG-RDT results showed 86% and 93% overall Kendall concordance with rIFA and IgG ELISA, respectively. IgG RDT performances were similar between plasma and whole blood. Overall, RDT sensitivity was 88% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 70-96), specificity 98% (95%CI: 90-100), PPV 97% (95%CI: 80-100) and NPV 94% (95%CI: 84-98). The IgG-RDT carried out from 0 to 6 days, 7 to 14 days and > 14 days after the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test displayed 30%, 73% and 100% positivity rates in the COVID-19 group, respectively. When considering samples taken >14 days after RT-PCR diagnosis, NPV was 100% (95%CI:90-100), and PPV was 100% (95%CI:72-100).ConclusionsThe Augurix IgG-RDT done in whole blood displays a high diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 IgG in high COVID-19 prevalence settings, where its use could be considered in the absence of routine diagnostic serology facilities.

| S-EPMC7404380 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data