Cargando…
Accuracy of the serological detection of IgG and IgM to SARS-Cov-2: a prospective, cross-sectional study
In response to the rapidly evolving of SARS-CoV-2 infection, numerous serological tests have been developed but their sensitivity and specificity are unclear. We collected serum samples of patients and health-care professionals to assess the accuracy of chemiluminescent (CLIA) and two lateral flow i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8036011/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33839972 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04224-3 |
_version_ | 1783676815650324480 |
---|---|
author | Pecoraro, Valentina Cassetti, Tiziana Meacci, Marisa Gargiulo, Raffaele Capobianchi, Maria Rosaria Mussini, Cristina Vecchi, Elena Pecorari, Monica Gagliotti, Carlo Trenti, Tommaso Sarti, Mario |
author_facet | Pecoraro, Valentina Cassetti, Tiziana Meacci, Marisa Gargiulo, Raffaele Capobianchi, Maria Rosaria Mussini, Cristina Vecchi, Elena Pecorari, Monica Gagliotti, Carlo Trenti, Tommaso Sarti, Mario |
author_sort | Pecoraro, Valentina |
collection | PubMed |
description | In response to the rapidly evolving of SARS-CoV-2 infection, numerous serological tests have been developed but their sensitivity and specificity are unclear. We collected serum samples of patients and health-care professionals to assess the accuracy of chemiluminescent (CLIA) and two lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFIA) to determine IgG and IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 virus. We calculated the φ correlation for qualitative results and test accuracy, adopting the following case definition: either real-time-PCR positivity or serological positivity with at least two different tests. We analyzed 259 samples, obtaining strong correlation between CLIA and both LFIA for IgG (φ=0.9), and moderate correlation for IgM (φ=0.6). For patients, the sensitivity was suboptimal for all methods (CLIA 81%, LFIA A 85%, LFIA B 78%), while it was poor in asymptomatic health-care workers (CLIA 50%, LFIA A 50%, LFIA B 33%). Overall, CLIA is more sensitive and specific for the determination of both IgG and IgM, whilst both LFIA methods reported good sensitivity and specificity for IgG, but scarce sensitivity for the IgM determination. The determination of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG is useful to detect infection 6 days from symptom onset. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10096-021-04224-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8036011 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80360112021-04-12 Accuracy of the serological detection of IgG and IgM to SARS-Cov-2: a prospective, cross-sectional study Pecoraro, Valentina Cassetti, Tiziana Meacci, Marisa Gargiulo, Raffaele Capobianchi, Maria Rosaria Mussini, Cristina Vecchi, Elena Pecorari, Monica Gagliotti, Carlo Trenti, Tommaso Sarti, Mario Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Original Article In response to the rapidly evolving of SARS-CoV-2 infection, numerous serological tests have been developed but their sensitivity and specificity are unclear. We collected serum samples of patients and health-care professionals to assess the accuracy of chemiluminescent (CLIA) and two lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFIA) to determine IgG and IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 virus. We calculated the φ correlation for qualitative results and test accuracy, adopting the following case definition: either real-time-PCR positivity or serological positivity with at least two different tests. We analyzed 259 samples, obtaining strong correlation between CLIA and both LFIA for IgG (φ=0.9), and moderate correlation for IgM (φ=0.6). For patients, the sensitivity was suboptimal for all methods (CLIA 81%, LFIA A 85%, LFIA B 78%), while it was poor in asymptomatic health-care workers (CLIA 50%, LFIA A 50%, LFIA B 33%). Overall, CLIA is more sensitive and specific for the determination of both IgG and IgM, whilst both LFIA methods reported good sensitivity and specificity for IgG, but scarce sensitivity for the IgM determination. The determination of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG is useful to detect infection 6 days from symptom onset. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10096-021-04224-3. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-04-10 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8036011/ /pubmed/33839972 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04224-3 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021 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 Pecoraro, Valentina Cassetti, Tiziana Meacci, Marisa Gargiulo, Raffaele Capobianchi, Maria Rosaria Mussini, Cristina Vecchi, Elena Pecorari, Monica Gagliotti, Carlo Trenti, Tommaso Sarti, Mario Accuracy of the serological detection of IgG and IgM to SARS-Cov-2: a prospective, cross-sectional study |
title | Accuracy of the serological detection of IgG and IgM to SARS-Cov-2: a prospective, cross-sectional study |
title_full | Accuracy of the serological detection of IgG and IgM to SARS-Cov-2: a prospective, cross-sectional study |
title_fullStr | Accuracy of the serological detection of IgG and IgM to SARS-Cov-2: a prospective, cross-sectional study |
title_full_unstemmed | Accuracy of the serological detection of IgG and IgM to SARS-Cov-2: a prospective, cross-sectional study |
title_short | Accuracy of the serological detection of IgG and IgM to SARS-Cov-2: a prospective, cross-sectional study |
title_sort | accuracy of the serological detection of igg and igm to sars-cov-2: a prospective, cross-sectional study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8036011/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33839972 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10096-021-04224-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pecorarovalentina accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy AT cassettitiziana accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy AT meaccimarisa accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy AT gargiuloraffaele accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy AT capobianchimariarosaria accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy AT mussinicristina accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy AT vecchielena accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy AT pecorarimonica accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy AT gagliotticarlo accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy AT trentitommaso accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy AT sartimario accuracyoftheserologicaldetectionofiggandigmtosarscov2aprospectivecrosssectionalstudy |