Cargando…
Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2
Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID19), the novel respiratory illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. The aim of our study was to compare different immunoassays. We evaluated three immunochromatographic test (The Stro...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7685776/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33236270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-04091-4 |
_version_ | 1783613234466521088 |
---|---|
author | Sacristan, María Simón Collazos-Blanco, Ana Cintas, Maria Isabel Zamora García, Alicia Serrano de Villavicencio, Carmen Ybarra Maestre, María Mateo |
author_facet | Sacristan, María Simón Collazos-Blanco, Ana Cintas, Maria Isabel Zamora García, Alicia Serrano de Villavicencio, Carmen Ybarra Maestre, María Mateo |
author_sort | Sacristan, María Simón |
collection | PubMed |
description | Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID19), the novel respiratory illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. The aim of our study was to compare different immunoassays. We evaluated three immunochromatographic test (The StrongStep®SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit, AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit, and Wondfo® SARS-CoV-2 Antibody) and two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CMIA) (Covid-19 VIRCLIA® IgM+IgA/IgG monotest and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay) in COVID-19 patients. The assays were performed using serum samples of three group patients, i.e., healthy controls, patients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive, and patients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative clinically diagnosed of COVID-19 infection. The detection percentages of IgG with the StrongStep® SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit and AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit were similar in both groups (83.3% and 80.6%, respectively in group 2, p = 0.766) and (42.9% and 50.0%, respectively in group 3, p = 0.706). There were some differences on IgM detection between StrongStep® SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit and AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit (11.1% and 30.6%, respectively in group 2, p = 0.042 and 0.0% and 28.6%, respectively in group 3, p = 0.031). The positive rate of IgG in group 2 is higher compared to group 3 with the two immunoassays tested. We observe the same positive rates of IgG with the two CMIA. Our study shows excellent performance of CMIA compared to immunochromatographic test and confirms its potential use in the diagnosis of the new SARS-CoV-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7685776 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76857762020-11-25 Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 Sacristan, María Simón Collazos-Blanco, Ana Cintas, Maria Isabel Zamora García, Alicia Serrano de Villavicencio, Carmen Ybarra Maestre, María Mateo Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Original Article Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID19), the novel respiratory illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), is associated with severe morbidity and mortality. The aim of our study was to compare different immunoassays. We evaluated three immunochromatographic test (The StrongStep®SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit, AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit, and Wondfo® SARS-CoV-2 Antibody) and two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CMIA) (Covid-19 VIRCLIA® IgM+IgA/IgG monotest and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay) in COVID-19 patients. The assays were performed using serum samples of three group patients, i.e., healthy controls, patients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive, and patients with SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative clinically diagnosed of COVID-19 infection. The detection percentages of IgG with the StrongStep® SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit and AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit were similar in both groups (83.3% and 80.6%, respectively in group 2, p = 0.766) and (42.9% and 50.0%, respectively in group 3, p = 0.706). There were some differences on IgM detection between StrongStep® SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM kit and AllTest COV-19 IgG/IgM kit (11.1% and 30.6%, respectively in group 2, p = 0.042 and 0.0% and 28.6%, respectively in group 3, p = 0.031). The positive rate of IgG in group 2 is higher compared to group 3 with the two immunoassays tested. We observe the same positive rates of IgG with the two CMIA. Our study shows excellent performance of CMIA compared to immunochromatographic test and confirms its potential use in the diagnosis of the new SARS-CoV-2. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-11-25 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7685776/ /pubmed/33236270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-04091-4 Text en © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Sacristan, María Simón Collazos-Blanco, Ana Cintas, Maria Isabel Zamora García, Alicia Serrano de Villavicencio, Carmen Ybarra Maestre, María Mateo Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 |
title | Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 |
title_full | Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 |
title_fullStr | Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 |
title_short | Comparison of various serological assays for novel SARS-COV-2 |
title_sort | comparison of various serological assays for novel sars-cov-2 |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7685776/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33236270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-04091-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sacristanmariasimon comparisonofvariousserologicalassaysfornovelsarscov2 AT collazosblancoana comparisonofvariousserologicalassaysfornovelsarscov2 AT cintasmariaisabelzamora comparisonofvariousserologicalassaysfornovelsarscov2 AT garciaaliciaserrano comparisonofvariousserologicalassaysfornovelsarscov2 AT devillavicenciocarmenybarra comparisonofvariousserologicalassaysfornovelsarscov2 AT maestremariamateo comparisonofvariousserologicalassaysfornovelsarscov2 |