Cargando…
Clinical performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test for determining past exposure to SARS-CoV-2
OBJECTIVES: Due to the number of asymptomatic infections and limited access to high-performance antibody tests, the true prevalence and seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unknown. To fill this gap, the clinical performance of a point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Assay, a chromatogra...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7677675/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33227517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.164 |
_version_ | 1783612023062396928 |
---|---|
author | Findeisen, Peter Stiegler, Hugo Lopez-Calle, Eloisa Schneider, Tanja Urlaub, Eva Hayer, Johannes Zemmrich, Claudia |
author_facet | Findeisen, Peter Stiegler, Hugo Lopez-Calle, Eloisa Schneider, Tanja Urlaub, Eva Hayer, Johannes Zemmrich, Claudia |
author_sort | Findeisen, Peter |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Due to the number of asymptomatic infections and limited access to high-performance antibody tests, the true prevalence and seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unknown. To fill this gap, the clinical performance of a point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Assay, a chromatographic immunoassay for detecting IgM/IgG antibodies, in near patient settings was assessed. METHODS: Forty-two anti-SARS-Cov-2 positive (CoV+) and 92 anti-SARS-Cov-2 negative (CoV–) leftover samples from before December 2019 were assessed; the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 was used as the reference assay. Analytical specificity was tested using leftover samples collected before December 2019 from patients with common cold symptoms. RESULTS: The SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test was 100.0% (95% CI 91.59–100.0) sensitive and 96.74% (95% CI 90.77–99.32) specific, with 0.00% assay failure rate. No cross-reactivity was observed against the common cold panel. Method comparison was additionally conducted by two external laboratories, using 100 CoV+ and 275 CoV– samples, also comparing whole blood versus plasma matrix. The comparison demonstrated 96.00% positive and 96.36% negative percent agreement for plasma with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and 99.20% percent overall agreement between whole blood and EDTA plasma. CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test demonstrated similar performance to the manufacturer’s data and a centralised automated immunoassay, with no cross-reactivity with common cold panels. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7677675 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76776752020-11-20 Clinical performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test for determining past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Findeisen, Peter Stiegler, Hugo Lopez-Calle, Eloisa Schneider, Tanja Urlaub, Eva Hayer, Johannes Zemmrich, Claudia Int J Infect Dis Article OBJECTIVES: Due to the number of asymptomatic infections and limited access to high-performance antibody tests, the true prevalence and seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unknown. To fill this gap, the clinical performance of a point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Assay, a chromatographic immunoassay for detecting IgM/IgG antibodies, in near patient settings was assessed. METHODS: Forty-two anti-SARS-Cov-2 positive (CoV+) and 92 anti-SARS-Cov-2 negative (CoV–) leftover samples from before December 2019 were assessed; the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 was used as the reference assay. Analytical specificity was tested using leftover samples collected before December 2019 from patients with common cold symptoms. RESULTS: The SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test was 100.0% (95% CI 91.59–100.0) sensitive and 96.74% (95% CI 90.77–99.32) specific, with 0.00% assay failure rate. No cross-reactivity was observed against the common cold panel. Method comparison was additionally conducted by two external laboratories, using 100 CoV+ and 275 CoV– samples, also comparing whole blood versus plasma matrix. The comparison demonstrated 96.00% positive and 96.36% negative percent agreement for plasma with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and 99.20% percent overall agreement between whole blood and EDTA plasma. CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test demonstrated similar performance to the manufacturer’s data and a centralised automated immunoassay, with no cross-reactivity with common cold panels. The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases. 2021-02 2020-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7677675/ /pubmed/33227517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.164 Text en © 2021 The Authors Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Findeisen, Peter Stiegler, Hugo Lopez-Calle, Eloisa Schneider, Tanja Urlaub, Eva Hayer, Johannes Zemmrich, Claudia Clinical performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test for determining past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 |
title | Clinical performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test for determining past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 |
title_full | Clinical performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test for determining past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 |
title_fullStr | Clinical performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test for determining past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test for determining past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 |
title_short | Clinical performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test for determining past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 |
title_sort | clinical performance evaluation of a sars-cov-2 rapid antibody test for determining past exposure to sars-cov-2 |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7677675/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33227517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.11.164 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT findeisenpeter clinicalperformanceevaluationofasarscov2rapidantibodytestfordeterminingpastexposuretosarscov2 AT stieglerhugo clinicalperformanceevaluationofasarscov2rapidantibodytestfordeterminingpastexposuretosarscov2 AT lopezcalleeloisa clinicalperformanceevaluationofasarscov2rapidantibodytestfordeterminingpastexposuretosarscov2 AT schneidertanja clinicalperformanceevaluationofasarscov2rapidantibodytestfordeterminingpastexposuretosarscov2 AT urlaubeva clinicalperformanceevaluationofasarscov2rapidantibodytestfordeterminingpastexposuretosarscov2 AT hayerjohannes clinicalperformanceevaluationofasarscov2rapidantibodytestfordeterminingpastexposuretosarscov2 AT zemmrichclaudia clinicalperformanceevaluationofasarscov2rapidantibodytestfordeterminingpastexposuretosarscov2 |