Cargando…
Clinical performance of different SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody tests
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) serological assays are urgently needed for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing, and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how commercially available tests perform with real patient samples, and if positive tested sampl...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7300776/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32510168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26145 |
_version_ | 1783547598972387328 |
---|---|
author | Kohmer, Niko Westhaus, Sandra Rühl, Cornelia Ciesek, Sandra Rabenau, Holger F. |
author_facet | Kohmer, Niko Westhaus, Sandra Rühl, Cornelia Ciesek, Sandra Rabenau, Holger F. |
author_sort | Kohmer, Niko |
collection | PubMed |
description | Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) serological assays are urgently needed for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing, and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how commercially available tests perform with real patient samples, and if positive tested samples show neutralizing abilities. Focusing on IgG antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of two enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assays (Euroimmun SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and Vircell COVID‐19 ELISA IgG) in comparison to one lateral flow assay (FaStep COVID‐19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device) and two in‐house developed assays (immunofluorescence assay [IFA] and plaque reduction neutralization test [PRNT]). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals polymerase chain reaction‐diagnosed with COVID‐19. Most of the SARS‐CoV‐2 samples were from individuals with moderate to the severe clinical course, who required an in‐patient hospital stay. For all examined assays, the sensitivity ranged from 58.8 to 76.5% for the early phase of infection (days 5‐9) and from 93.8% to 100% for the later period (days 10‐18). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7300776 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73007762020-06-18 Clinical performance of different SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody tests Kohmer, Niko Westhaus, Sandra Rühl, Cornelia Ciesek, Sandra Rabenau, Holger F. J Med Virol Short Communications Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) serological assays are urgently needed for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing, and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how commercially available tests perform with real patient samples, and if positive tested samples show neutralizing abilities. Focusing on IgG antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of two enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assays (Euroimmun SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and Vircell COVID‐19 ELISA IgG) in comparison to one lateral flow assay (FaStep COVID‐19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device) and two in‐house developed assays (immunofluorescence assay [IFA] and plaque reduction neutralization test [PRNT]). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals polymerase chain reaction‐diagnosed with COVID‐19. Most of the SARS‐CoV‐2 samples were from individuals with moderate to the severe clinical course, who required an in‐patient hospital stay. For all examined assays, the sensitivity ranged from 58.8 to 76.5% for the early phase of infection (days 5‐9) and from 93.8% to 100% for the later period (days 10‐18). John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-06-19 2020-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7300776/ /pubmed/32510168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26145 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Medical Virology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Short Communications Kohmer, Niko Westhaus, Sandra Rühl, Cornelia Ciesek, Sandra Rabenau, Holger F. Clinical performance of different SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody tests |
title | Clinical performance of different SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody tests |
title_full | Clinical performance of different SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody tests |
title_fullStr | Clinical performance of different SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody tests |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical performance of different SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody tests |
title_short | Clinical performance of different SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody tests |
title_sort | clinical performance of different sars‐cov‐2 igg antibody tests |
topic | Short Communications |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7300776/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32510168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26145 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kohmerniko clinicalperformanceofdifferentsarscov2iggantibodytests AT westhaussandra clinicalperformanceofdifferentsarscov2iggantibodytests AT ruhlcornelia clinicalperformanceofdifferentsarscov2iggantibodytests AT cieseksandra clinicalperformanceofdifferentsarscov2iggantibodytests AT rabenauholgerf clinicalperformanceofdifferentsarscov2iggantibodytests |