Diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM antibody tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA in COVID-19 patients

被引:197
|
作者
Van Elslande, J. [1 ,2 ]
Houben, E. [1 ,2 ]
Depypere, M. [1 ,2 ]
Brackenier, A. [3 ]
Desmet, S. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Andre, E. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Van Ranst, M. [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Lagrou, K. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Vermeersch, P. [1 ,2 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Leuven, Clin Dept Lab Med, Herestr 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
[2] Univ Hosp Leuven, Natl Reference Ctr Resp Pathogens, Leuven, Belgium
[3] Leadlife BV, Ghent, Belgium
[4] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Microbiol Immunol & Transplantat, Leuven, Belgium
[5] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Rega Inst, Lab Clin & Epidemiol Virol, Leuven, Belgium
[6] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Cardiovasc Sci, Leuven, Belgium
关键词
COVID-19; Diagnosis; ELISA; Immunoassay; Lateral flow assay; Point-of-care testing; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and specificity; Seroconversion;
D O I
10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.023
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Specificity was evaluated in 103 samples collected before January 2020. Sensitivity and time to seropositivity was evaluated in 167 samples from 94 patients with COVID-19 confirmed with RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab. Results: Specificity (confidence interval) of lateral flow assays (LFAs) was >= 91.3% (84.0-95.5) for IgM, >= 90.3% (82.9-94.8) for IgG, and >= 85.4% (77.2-91.1) for the combination IgM OR IgG. Specificity of the ELISA was 96.1% (90.1-98.8) for IgG and only 73.8% (64.5-81.4) for IgA. Sensitivity 14e25 days after the onset of symptoms was between >= 92.1% (78.5-98.0) and 100% (95.7-100) for IgG LFA compared to 89.5% (75.3-96.4) for IgG ELISA. Positivity of IgM OR IgG for LFA resulted in a decrease in specificity compared to IgG alone without a gain in diagnostic performance, except for VivaDiag. The results for IgM varied significantly between the LFAs with an average overall agreement of only 70% compared to 89% for IgG. The average dynamic trend to seropositivity for IgM was not shorter than for IgG. At the time of hospital admission the sensitivity of LFA was <60%. Conclusions: Sensitivity for the detection of IgG antibodies 14-25 days after the onset of symptoms was >= 92.1% for all seven LFAs compared to 89.5% for the IgG ELISA. The results for IgM varied significantly, and including IgM antibodies in addition to IgG for the interpretation of LFAs did not improve the diagnostic performance. (C) 2020 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1082 / 1087
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Performance evaluation of in-house developed Covid-19 IgG/IgM antibody rapid diagnostic kit
    Sagar, G. Vinaya Chandu Vidya
    Reddy, P. V. Janardhan
    Suravajhala, Prashanth
    Suravajhala, Renuka
    Kiran, V. Uday
    Kishor, P. B. Kavi
    Venkateswarulu, T. C.
    Polavarapu, Rathnagiri
    AMB EXPRESS, 2023, 13 (01)
  • [2] Performance evaluation of in-house developed Covid-19 IgG/IgM antibody rapid diagnostic kit
    Vinaya Chandu Vidya Sagar G
    PV Janardhan Reddy
    Prashanth Suravajhala
    Renuka Suravajhala
    Uday Kiran V
    Kavi Kishor PB
    Venkateswarulu TC
    Rathnagiri Polavarapu
    AMB Express, 13
  • [3] Diagnostic utility of rapid tests to detect IgG/IgM antibodies against COVID-19
    Sanchez Frenes, Pedro
    Garcia Torres, Dayami
    Sanchez Bouza, Maria de Jesus
    Mendoza Cartaya, Gippsy
    Portela Sanchez, Mavis
    MEDISUR-REVISTA DE CIENCIAS MEDICAS DE CIENFUEGOS, 2022, 20 (02): : 374 - 380
  • [4] Performance of rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody tests in the occupational surveillance of COVID-19 in Colombian enterprises
    Idrovo, Alvaro J.
    Moreno-Montoya, Jose
    Pinzon-Florez, Carlos E.
    BIOMEDICA, 2020, 40 : 139 - 147
  • [5] Serum IgA, IgM, and IgG responses in COVID-19
    Ma, Huan
    Zeng, Weihong
    He, Hongliang
    Zhao, Dan
    Jiang, Dehua
    Zhou, Peigen
    Cheng, Linzhao
    Li, Yajuan
    Ma, Xiaoling
    Jin, Tengchuan
    CELLULAR & MOLECULAR IMMUNOLOGY, 2020, 17 (07) : 773 - 775
  • [6] Serum IgA, IgM, and IgG responses in COVID-19
    Huan Ma
    Weihong Zeng
    Hongliang He
    Dan Zhao
    Dehua Jiang
    Peigen Zhou
    Linzhao Cheng
    Yajuan Li
    Xiaoling Ma
    Tengchuan Jin
    Cellular & Molecular Immunology, 2020, 17 : 773 - 775
  • [7] Patterns of IgG and IgM antibody response in COVID-19 patients
    Liu, Xuemei
    Wang, Jing
    Xu, Xiaolei
    Liao, Guojian
    Chen, Yaokai
    Hu, Chang-Hua
    EMERGING MICROBES & INFECTIONS, 2020, 9 (01) : 1269 - 1274
  • [8] Evaluation of Antibody Response in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic COVID-19 Patients and Diagnostic Assessment of New IgM/IgG ELISA Kits
    Al-Jighefee, Hadeel T.
    Yassine, Hadi M.
    Al-Nesf, Maryam A.
    Hssain, Ali A.
    Taleb, Sara
    Mohamed, Ahmed S.
    Maatoug, Hassen
    Mohamedali, Mohamed
    Nasrallah, Gheyath K.
    PATHOGENS, 2021, 10 (02): : 1 - 18
  • [9] Comprehensive Study of the IBMP ELISA IgA/IgM/IgG COVID-19 Kit for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection
    Mattar, Sibelle Botogosque
    Celedon, Paola Alejandra Fiorani
    Leony, Leonardo Maia
    Vasconcelos, Larissa de Carvalho Medrado
    Sampaio, Daniel Dias
    Marchini, Fabricio Klerynton
    Morello, Luis Gustavo
    Lin, Vanessa Hoysan
    Crestani, Sandra
    Camelier, Aquiles Assuncao
    Meireles, Andre Costa
    de Oliveira Jr, Andre Luiz Freitas
    Bandeira, Antonio Carlos
    Macedo, Yasmin Santos Freitas
    Duarte, Alan Oliveira
    Pavan, Tycha Bianca Sabaini
    de Siqueira, Isadora Cristina
    Santos, Fred Luciano Neves
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2024, 14 (14)
  • [10] Validity and reliability of immunochromatographic IgM/IgG rapid tests for COVID-19 salivary diagnosis
    Serafim Vilela, Ana Carolina
    Costa, Camila Alves
    Oliveira, Suzane Aparecida
    Lima Dias Souza, Menira Borges
    Fiaccadori, Fabiola Souza
    Leles, Claudio Rodrigues
    Costa, Nadia Lago
    ORAL DISEASES, 2022, 28 : 2465 - 2473