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

被引:204
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 16 条
[1]   COVID-19: too little, too late? [J].
不详 .
LANCET, 2020, 395 (10226) :755-755
[2]  
Brennan D., 2020, UK SAYS MILLIONS COR
[3]   Performance of VivaDiag COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test is inadequate for diagnosis of COVID-19 in acute patients referring to emergency room department [J].
Cassaniti, Irene ;
Novazzi, Federica ;
Giardina, Federica ;
Salinaro, Francesco ;
Sachs, Michele ;
Perlini, Stefano ;
Bruno, Raffaele ;
Mojoli, Francesco ;
Baldanti, Fausto .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY, 2020, 92 (10) :1724-1727
[4]   Genomic characterization of the 2019 novel human-pathogenic coronavirus isolated from a patient with atypical pneumonia after visiting Wuhan [J].
Chan, Jasper Fuk-Woo ;
Kok, Kin-Hang ;
Zhu, Zheng ;
Chu, Hin ;
To, Kelvin Kai-Wang ;
Yuan, Shuofeng ;
Yuen, Kwok-Yung .
EMERGING MICROBES & INFECTIONS, 2020, 9 (01) :221-236
[5]   Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR (Publication with Expression of Concern) [J].
Corman, Victor M. ;
Landt, Olfert ;
Kaiser, Marco ;
Molenkamp, Richard ;
Meijer, Adam ;
Chu, Daniel K. W. ;
Bleicker, Tobias ;
Bruenink, Sebastian ;
Schneider, Julia ;
Schmidt, Marie Luisa ;
Mulders, Daphne G. J. C. ;
Haagmans, Bart L. ;
van der Veer, Bas ;
van den Brink, Sharon ;
Wijsman, Lisa ;
Goderski, Gabriel ;
Romette, Jean-Louis ;
Ellis, Joanna ;
Zambon, Maria ;
Peiris, Malik ;
Goossens, Herman ;
Reusken, Chantal ;
Koopmans, Marion P. G. ;
Drosten, Christian .
EUROSURVEILLANCE, 2020, 25 (03) :23-30
[6]   Profiling Early Humoral Response to Diagnose Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) [J].
Guo, Li ;
Ren, Lili ;
Yang, Siyuan ;
Xiao, Meng ;
Chang, De ;
Yang, Fan ;
Dela Cruz, Charles S. ;
Wang, Yingying ;
Wu, Chao ;
Xiao, Yan ;
Zhang, Lulu ;
Han, Lianlian ;
Dang, Shengyuan ;
Xu, Yan ;
Yang, Qi-Wen ;
Xu, Sheng-Yong ;
Zhu, Hua-Dong ;
Xu, Ying-Chun ;
Jin, Qi ;
Sharma, Lokesh ;
Wang, Linghang ;
Wang, Jianwei .
CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2020, 71 (15) :778-785
[7]   Chronological evolution of IgM, IgA, IgG and neutralisation antibodies after infection with SARS-associated coronavirus [J].
Hsueh, PR ;
Huang, LM ;
Chen, PJ ;
Kao, CL ;
Yang, PC .
CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2004, 10 (12) :1062-1066
[8]  
Li ZT, 2020, J MED VIROL, V92, P1518, DOI [10.1002/jmv.25727, 10.12052/gdutxb.200076]
[9]  
Long QX, 2020, NAT MED, V26, P845, DOI [10.1038/s41591-020-0897-1, 10.1093/cid/ciaa344]
[10]   Protective immunity after COVID-19 has been questioned: What can we do without SARS-CoV-2-IgG detection? [J].
Melgaco, Juliana Gil ;
Azamor, Tamiris ;
Bom, Ana Paula Dinis Ano .
CELLULAR IMMUNOLOGY, 2020, 353