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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kohmer, Niko, Westhaus, Sandra, Rühl, Cornelia, Ciesek, Sandra, Rabenau, Holger F.
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