ObjectivesThe outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread globally. The laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection has relied on nucleic acid testing; however, it has some limitations, such as low throughput and high rates of false negatives. Tests of higher sensitivity are needed to effectively identify infected patients.MethodsThis study has developed fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassays to determine IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in human serum. The assay performance has been evaluated at 10 hospitals. Clinical specificity was evaluated by measuring 972 hospitalized patients and 586 donors of a normal population. Clinical sensitivity was assessed on 513 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR.ResultsThe assays demonstrated satisfied assay precision with coefficient of variation of less than 4.45%. Inactivation of specimen did not affect assay measurement. SARS-CoV-2 IgM showed clinical specificity of 97.33 and 99.49% for hospitalized patients and the normal population respectively, and SARS-CoV-2 IgG showed clinical specificity of 97.43 and 99.15% respectively. SARS-CoV-2 IgM showed clinical sensitivity of 82.54, 92.93, and 84.62% before 7 days, 7–14 days, and after 14 days respectively, since onset of symptoms, and SARS-CoV-2 IgG showed clinical sensitivity of 80.95, 97.98, and 99.15% respectively at the same time points above.ConclusionsWe have developed fully automated immunoassays for detecting SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in human serum. The assays demonstrated high clinical specificity and sensitivity, and add great value to nucleic acid testing in fighting against the global pandemic of the SARS-CoV-2 infection.
There is a high prevalence of hyperuricemia (HUA) in the chronic kidney disease (CKD) population. However, there’s a dearth of research on HUA’s prevalence, subtypes, early detection, and treatment strategies of HUA in lupus nephritis (LN) patients. The aim of this study is to address these knowledge gaps. LN patients presenting to the Department of Nephrology at Shanghai Rui Jin Hospital from January 2011 to January 2016 were recruited. The effective sample size was derived using the power analysis. The demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics of the LN patients with HUA were compared with those of patients without HUA. Two statistical models for analyzing HUA were built and compared using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The total prevalence of HUA in the cohort was 40.11%. The subtypes of HUA included urate underexcretion-type, overproduction-type and combined-type, which proportion being 67.7%, 9.7% and 22.6% respectively. The CKD stage was closely associated with the prevalence of HUA in patients with LN. The other significant associated factors were hypertension, triglycerides, serum creatinine, serum albumin, hemoglobin, parathyroid hormone, phosphorus, calcium, etc. The statistical algorithm successfully identified LN patients at risk of HUA. In conclusion, there was a high prevalence of HUA in LN patients at CKD stages 1–3, and renal underexcretion hyperuricemia was the most prevalent subtype. The occurrence of HUA in LN may be related to renal insufficiency, metabolic disorder and lupus itself. Early care coordination programs can employ risk models to improve HUA prevention and target interventions in LN patients.
BACKGROUND:The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread globally. The laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection has relied on nucleic acid tests. However, there are many limitations of nucleic acid tests, including low throughput and high rates of false negatives. More sensitive and accurate tests to effectively identify infected patients are needed. METHODS:This study has developed fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIA) to determine IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in human serum. The assay performance has been evaluated at 10 hospitals. Clinical specificity was evaluated by measuring 972 hospitalized patients with diseases other than COVID-19, and 586 donors of a normal population. Clinical sensitivity was assessed on 503 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and 52 suspected cases. RESULTS:The assays demonstrated satisfied assay precision with coefficient of variation (CV) of less than 4.45%. Inactivation of specimen does not affect assay measurement. SARS-CoV-2 IgM shows clinical specificity of 97.33% and 99.49% for hospitalized patients and normal population respectively. SARS-CoV-2 IgG shows clinical specificity of 97.43% and 99.15% for the hospitalized patients and the normal population respectively. SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG show clinical sensitivity of 85.88% and 96.62% respectively for confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection with RT-PCR, of 73.08% All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONRepeatability and within-laboratory precision were evaluated according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) EP5-A2 protocol (13). One negative and two to three positive serums for SARS-CoV-2 IgM or IgG were used for the study.Each sample was measured in duplicate, two runs (morning and afternoon) per day over 20 testing days (n = 80). Repeatability and within-laboratory precision were calculated taking repeatability, run-to-run and day-to-day variance into account.Linearity was assessed according to CLSI EP6-A guidelines (14). A sample with high SARS-CoV-2 IgM or IgG concentration was mixed in different proportions with a sample of low SARS-CoV-2 IgM or IgG concentration to form a dilution series. Each dilution was subsequently assayed in triplicates in one run, and mean results of the measured values were plotted against the dilution ratios. Serum samples negative and positive to SARS-CoV-2 IgM or IgG from 55 subjects (15 negative and 40 positive) were measured in duplicate before and after inactivation at 56℃ for 30 minutes.Clinical specificity was evaluated by measuring 972 hospitalized patients with diseases other than COVID-19, and 586 donors of normal population undergoing physical examinations. Clinical sensitivity was assessed on patients diagnosed to SARS-CoV-2 infection either by a RT-PCR nucleic acid test (confirmed cases of 503 patients), or by typical epi...
Background In this study, we investigated the clinical value of serum Inhibin B alone or in combination with other hormone indicators in subfertile men. Methods This is a multicenter study involving 324 men from different cities in China. Testicular volume, routine semen analysis, serum Inhibin B, anti‐Müllerian hormone (AMH), follicle‐stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), testosterone, estradiol, and prolactin were measured. Testicular tissue samples were also analyzed in 78 of 129 patients with azoospermia to distinguish impaired spermatogenesis from obstructive azoospermia. Results The concentration of Inhibin B, FSH, and AMH is related to spermatogenesis. For men with impaired spermatogenesis, including mild‐to‐moderate oligozoospermia (IMO) and severe oligozoospermia (ISO), serum levels of Inhibin B and FSH are highly correlated with sperm counting. However, in patients with idiopathic moderate oligozoospermia or severe oligozoospermia, there was no significant correlation between Inhibin B (or FSH) and sperm concentration. The upper cutoff value of Inhibin B to diagnose ISO is 58.25 pg/ml with a predictive accuracy of 80.65%. To distinguish between nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) and obstructive azoospermia (OA), the area under the curve (AUC) for AMH + Inhibin B + FSH is very similar to Inhibin B (0.943 vs. 0.941). The cutoff level of Inhibin B to diagnose nonobstructive azoospermia is 45.9 pg/ml with a positive and negative prediction accuracy of 97.70% and 85.71%, respectively. Conclusion In summary, Inhibin B is a promising biomarker alone or in combination with other hormone indicators for the diagnosis of testicular spermatogenesis status, helping clinical doctors to distinguish NOA from OA.
Background: IgA antibodies against Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) capsid antigen (VCA) and nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) have been proposed to facilitate the diagnosis and early detection of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in high-incidence regions. However, while new methodologies and new platforms for the detection of VCA-IgA and EBNA1-IgA have become available, proper interassay simultaneous comparisons have not been carried out. The study was to compare the performance of the chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for VCA-IgA and EBNA1-IgA antibodies, and to evaluate the levels of EBV antibodies in healthy population from different areas of China. Methods: CLIA and ELISA for VCA-IgA and EBNA1-IgA were performed in NPC and healthy populations from high-incidence areas of NPC in South China (N=555), medium-incidence areas of NPC in Central China (N=318) and low-incidence areas of NPC in North China (N=379), and the results were compared and analyzed. Results: (1) The highest sensitivity in total, early and advanced NPC were 91.5% (CLIA for VCA-IgA), 86.4% (CLIA and ELISA-2 for EBNA1-IgA) and 93.6% (CLIA for VCA-IgA). However, the specificity of EBV-IgA measured by CLIA was relatively lower than ELISA. The top three seromarkers with the largest AUC was CLIA for VCA-IgA (AUC: 0.929, 95% CI: 0.905-0.953), ELISA-2 for EBNA1-IgA (AUC: 0.922, 95% CI: 0.896-0.947) and CLIA for EBNA1-IgA (AUC:0.919, 95% CI: 0.893-0.945), respectively. The positive and negative coincidence rates of the two EBNA1-IgA kits were 69.5% and 91.9%, respectively. However, the coincidence rates of VCA-IgA were relatively low. CLIA kits had good repeatability between different laboratories. (2) The positive rates of EBV-IgA antibodies were relatively high in high-incidence areas of NPC (P < 0.017), while there was no significant difference in the antibody positive rates between medium-incidence areas and low-incidence areas of NPC (P > 0.05).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.