Cargando…
Performance of two rapid point of care SARS-COV-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-COV-2 IG-G, IG-M and total antibodies
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated two SARS-CoV-2 antibody point-of-care tests (POCTs) (Abbott Panbio COVID-19 IgG/IgM and Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody tests) and compared the results to their respective chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) (Abbott Architect IgM, Architect IgG, Roche Cobas total antibod...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7816621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33501369 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00201 |
_version_ | 1783638481439817728 |
---|---|
author | Lau, C.S. Hoo, S.P. Liang, Y.L. Phua, S.K. Aw, T.C. |
author_facet | Lau, C.S. Hoo, S.P. Liang, Y.L. Phua, S.K. Aw, T.C. |
author_sort | Lau, C.S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: We evaluated two SARS-CoV-2 antibody point-of-care tests (POCTs) (Abbott Panbio COVID-19 IgG/IgM and Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody tests) and compared the results to their respective chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) (Abbott Architect IgM, Architect IgG, Roche Cobas total antibody assays). METHOD: 200 pre-pandemic sera and 48 samples positive for various conditions (18 viral hepatitis, 18 dengue, 11 ANA and 1 dsDNA) were used as controls and to assess for cross-reactivity. Anonymised residual leftover sera positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR were recruited as cases (n = 133). The sensitivity/specificity/cross-reactivity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of the POCTs were assessed. Concordance between the POCTs and chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) were analysed. RESULTS: Abbott/Roche POCT specificity was 98.7%/100% (95% CI 96.5–99.8/98.5–100) and sensitivity was 97.2%/97.2% (95% CI 85.5–99.9/85.5–99.9) in cases ≥14 days post-first positive RT-PCR (POS), PPV was 68.7%/100% (95% CI 41.3–87.2/94.7–100.0), and NPV was 97.4%/97.6% (95% CI 97.0–97.8/97.2–98.0). In cases ≥14 days POS, concordance of Abbott/Roche POCT and CLIAs was 97.2%/100% (35/36 and 36/36 results). The sensitivity of individual IgM-band results on both POCTs did not increase >95% even after 14 days POS (Abbott 2.78%, Roche 44.4%). CONCLUSION: Both POCTs have good specificity, little cross-reactivity with other antibodies, and sensitivity >95% when used in subjects ≥14 days POS. Analysis of individual POCT IgG/IgM-bands did not provide any additional information. POCTs can substitute for CLIAs in cases ≥14 days POS. In low prevalence areas, POCTs would be especially useful when combined with antigen testing in an orthogonal format to increase the PPV of COVID-19 results. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7816621 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78166212021-01-21 Performance of two rapid point of care SARS-COV-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-COV-2 IG-G, IG-M and total antibodies Lau, C.S. Hoo, S.P. Liang, Y.L. Phua, S.K. Aw, T.C. Pract Lab Med Article INTRODUCTION: We evaluated two SARS-CoV-2 antibody point-of-care tests (POCTs) (Abbott Panbio COVID-19 IgG/IgM and Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody tests) and compared the results to their respective chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) (Abbott Architect IgM, Architect IgG, Roche Cobas total antibody assays). METHOD: 200 pre-pandemic sera and 48 samples positive for various conditions (18 viral hepatitis, 18 dengue, 11 ANA and 1 dsDNA) were used as controls and to assess for cross-reactivity. Anonymised residual leftover sera positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR were recruited as cases (n = 133). The sensitivity/specificity/cross-reactivity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of the POCTs were assessed. Concordance between the POCTs and chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) were analysed. RESULTS: Abbott/Roche POCT specificity was 98.7%/100% (95% CI 96.5–99.8/98.5–100) and sensitivity was 97.2%/97.2% (95% CI 85.5–99.9/85.5–99.9) in cases ≥14 days post-first positive RT-PCR (POS), PPV was 68.7%/100% (95% CI 41.3–87.2/94.7–100.0), and NPV was 97.4%/97.6% (95% CI 97.0–97.8/97.2–98.0). In cases ≥14 days POS, concordance of Abbott/Roche POCT and CLIAs was 97.2%/100% (35/36 and 36/36 results). The sensitivity of individual IgM-band results on both POCTs did not increase >95% even after 14 days POS (Abbott 2.78%, Roche 44.4%). CONCLUSION: Both POCTs have good specificity, little cross-reactivity with other antibodies, and sensitivity >95% when used in subjects ≥14 days POS. Analysis of individual POCT IgG/IgM-bands did not provide any additional information. POCTs can substitute for CLIAs in cases ≥14 days POS. In low prevalence areas, POCTs would be especially useful when combined with antigen testing in an orthogonal format to increase the PPV of COVID-19 results. Elsevier 2021-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7816621/ /pubmed/33501369 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00201 Text en © 2021 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Lau, C.S. Hoo, S.P. Liang, Y.L. Phua, S.K. Aw, T.C. Performance of two rapid point of care SARS-COV-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-COV-2 IG-G, IG-M and total antibodies |
title | Performance of two rapid point of care SARS-COV-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-COV-2 IG-G, IG-M and total antibodies |
title_full | Performance of two rapid point of care SARS-COV-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-COV-2 IG-G, IG-M and total antibodies |
title_fullStr | Performance of two rapid point of care SARS-COV-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-COV-2 IG-G, IG-M and total antibodies |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance of two rapid point of care SARS-COV-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-COV-2 IG-G, IG-M and total antibodies |
title_short | Performance of two rapid point of care SARS-COV-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-COV-2 IG-G, IG-M and total antibodies |
title_sort | performance of two rapid point of care sars-cov-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for sars-cov-2 ig-g, ig-m and total antibodies |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7816621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33501369 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00201 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT laucs performanceoftworapidpointofcaresarscov2antibodyassaysagainstlaboratorybasedautomatedchemiluminescentimmunoassaysforsarscov2iggigmandtotalantibodies AT hoosp performanceoftworapidpointofcaresarscov2antibodyassaysagainstlaboratorybasedautomatedchemiluminescentimmunoassaysforsarscov2iggigmandtotalantibodies AT liangyl performanceoftworapidpointofcaresarscov2antibodyassaysagainstlaboratorybasedautomatedchemiluminescentimmunoassaysforsarscov2iggigmandtotalantibodies AT phuask performanceoftworapidpointofcaresarscov2antibodyassaysagainstlaboratorybasedautomatedchemiluminescentimmunoassaysforsarscov2iggigmandtotalantibodies AT awtc performanceoftworapidpointofcaresarscov2antibodyassaysagainstlaboratorybasedautomatedchemiluminescentimmunoassaysforsarscov2iggigmandtotalantibodies |