Cargando…
The difference between IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays for COVID-19; lessons from the examination of healthcare workers
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between the results of two serology assays for detection of COVID-19 among medical staff, who are at higher risks of infection. METHODS: The immunochromatography (ICG) rapid test kit and the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLI...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7836839/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33508702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2020.107360 |
_version_ | 1783642831755149312 |
---|---|
author | Kobashi, Yurie Shimazu, Yuzo Nishikawa, Yoshitaka Kawamura, Takeshi Kodama, Tatsuhiko Obara, Daiji Tsubokura, Masaharu |
author_facet | Kobashi, Yurie Shimazu, Yuzo Nishikawa, Yoshitaka Kawamura, Takeshi Kodama, Tatsuhiko Obara, Daiji Tsubokura, Masaharu |
author_sort | Kobashi, Yurie |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between the results of two serology assays for detection of COVID-19 among medical staff, who are at higher risks of infection. METHODS: The immunochromatography (ICG) rapid test kit and the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) quantitative antibody test were performed. The differences in IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 637 participants were included in this research. Two staff were IgM positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test (cutoff value: 10 AU/ml) of 51 staff who were IgM positive in the rapid test kit. Six staff were IgG positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test of 56 staff who were IgG positive in the rapid test kit. The proportion of antibody positive staff differed greatly between the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test. CONCLUSIONS: There was a vast difference in the proportions of IgG and IgM antibody positive staff in the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test results. The results from the only rapid test kit might have to be interpreted with caution. Further studies to evaluate antibody testing accuracy are required to promote the understanding of each assay's characteristics and determine their purposes in each community. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7836839 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78368392021-01-26 The difference between IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays for COVID-19; lessons from the examination of healthcare workers Kobashi, Yurie Shimazu, Yuzo Nishikawa, Yoshitaka Kawamura, Takeshi Kodama, Tatsuhiko Obara, Daiji Tsubokura, Masaharu Int Immunopharmacol Short Communication OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between the results of two serology assays for detection of COVID-19 among medical staff, who are at higher risks of infection. METHODS: The immunochromatography (ICG) rapid test kit and the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) quantitative antibody test were performed. The differences in IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 637 participants were included in this research. Two staff were IgM positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test (cutoff value: 10 AU/ml) of 51 staff who were IgM positive in the rapid test kit. Six staff were IgG positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test of 56 staff who were IgG positive in the rapid test kit. The proportion of antibody positive staff differed greatly between the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test. CONCLUSIONS: There was a vast difference in the proportions of IgG and IgM antibody positive staff in the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test results. The results from the only rapid test kit might have to be interpreted with caution. Further studies to evaluate antibody testing accuracy are required to promote the understanding of each assay's characteristics and determine their purposes in each community. The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. 2021-03 2020-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7836839/ /pubmed/33508702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2020.107360 Text en © 2020 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 | Short Communication Kobashi, Yurie Shimazu, Yuzo Nishikawa, Yoshitaka Kawamura, Takeshi Kodama, Tatsuhiko Obara, Daiji Tsubokura, Masaharu The difference between IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays for COVID-19; lessons from the examination of healthcare workers |
title | The difference between IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays for COVID-19; lessons from the examination of healthcare workers |
title_full | The difference between IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays for COVID-19; lessons from the examination of healthcare workers |
title_fullStr | The difference between IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays for COVID-19; lessons from the examination of healthcare workers |
title_full_unstemmed | The difference between IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays for COVID-19; lessons from the examination of healthcare workers |
title_short | The difference between IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays for COVID-19; lessons from the examination of healthcare workers |
title_sort | difference between igm and igg antibody prevalence in different serological assays for covid-19; lessons from the examination of healthcare workers |
topic | Short Communication |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7836839/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33508702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2020.107360 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kobashiyurie thedifferencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT shimazuyuzo thedifferencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT nishikawayoshitaka thedifferencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT kawamuratakeshi thedifferencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT kodamatatsuhiko thedifferencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT obaradaiji thedifferencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT tsubokuramasaharu thedifferencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT kobashiyurie differencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT shimazuyuzo differencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT nishikawayoshitaka differencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT kawamuratakeshi differencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT kodamatatsuhiko differencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT obaradaiji differencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers AT tsubokuramasaharu differencebetweenigmandiggantibodyprevalenceindifferentserologicalassaysforcovid19lessonsfromtheexaminationofhealthcareworkers |