Comparison of four commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG immuno-assays in RT-PCR negative patients with suspect CT findings

Praet, Jens Van; Coene, Ann Sofie; Moortele, Kris Van De; Descheemaeker, Patrick

doi:10.1007/s15010-020-01523-3

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, a number of studies have compared and validated smaller panels ( n = 1–7) of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests for diagnostic use [ 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. In the present study, we intended to systematically cross-compare a large number of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests, and thus analyzed a broad panel of SARS-CoV-2 ECLIA-, ELISA-, and LFA-based tests which were available in May 2020, using a relatively large number of sera from patients with COVID-19, and from controls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Broad Panel of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Tests for Diagnostic Use

Werner

Pervan

Glück

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Serological testing is crucial in detection of previous infection and in monitoring convalescent and vaccine-induced immunity. During the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, numerous assay platforms have been developed and marketed for clinical use. Several studies recently compared clinical performance of a limited number of serological tests, but broad comparative evaluation is currently missing. Within this study, a panel of 161 sera from SARS-CoV-2 infected, seasonal CoV-infected and SARS-CoV-2 naïve subjects was enrolled to evaluate 16 ELISA/ECLIA-based and 16 LFA-based tests. Specificities of all ELISA/ECLIA-based assays were acceptable and generally in agreement with the providers’ specifications, but sensitivities were lower as specified. Results of the LFAs were less accurate as compared to the ELISAs, albeit with some exceptions. We found a sporadic unequal immune response for different antigens and thus recommend the use of a nucleocapsid protein (N)- and spike protein (S)-based test combination when maximal sensitivity is necessary. Finally, the quality of the immune response in terms of neutralization should be tested using S-based IgG tests.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Broad Panel of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Tests for Diagnostic Use

Werner

Pervan

Glück

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is because of the possibility that some patients may have normal radiological findings at the early stages of the disease. 203,214 8.3 | CRISPR/Cas-based methods CRISPR are prokaryotic protection systems that defend organisms against exogenous nucleic acids. Currently, several different Cas enzymes have been known (e.g., Cas9, Cas12, and Cas13) that can be automated for the recognition of RNA viruses.…”

Section: Ct Scan Based Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although CT is a valuable tool in evaluating patients with suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, it alone may have limited negative predictive value for ruling out SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. This is because of the possibility that some patients may have normal radiological findings at the early stages of the disease 203,214 …”

Section: Diagnosis Of Sars‐cov‐2 Variants and Possibility Of False Po...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons from COVID‐19: Aspects of prevention, therapeutics, and diagnostics against SARS‐CoV‐2 with special focus on JN.1 and XBB sublineages

Jaishwal,

Gyaneshwari,

Jha

et al. 2024

MedComm – Future Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The end of second decade in the 21st century witnessed a prominent disease outbreak caused by the novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2 (including most diverse omicron subvariants), where the death toll crossed the boundary of 6.9 million across the globe by December 19, 2023. All spheres of central dogma of molecular biology and host‒pathogen interaction was explored to find ways in diagnostics, isolation, curtailment, and therapy. Above all, diagnostics and therapeutics against COVID‐19 took an enormous jump, which needs to be evaluated for accuracy and feasibility and requires serious compilation for current and future generations. With the same objective, this review encompasses the diverse ways including prevention practiced and proposed during the handling of this pandemic across the globe. It involves the role of mutations in viruses and subsequent epitope mapping with potential immune escape mechanisms of SARS‐CoV‐2 variants including the conservancy of T‐cell epitopes has also been highlighted. The efficacy in antigen/antibody‐based diagnostics, RT‒PCR‐ and NGS‐based confirmation of pathogen presence, and imaging (X‐ray/CT‐scan) for symptoms and damage assessment has been thoroughly filtered. The possibility of errors in diagnostics and their cause and consequences have also been presented for the ease of readers and further improvisers.

show abstract

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

Fox

Geppert

Dinnes

et al. 2022

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology. Objectives To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 cases. Search methods The COVID‐19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co‐ordinating Centre (EPPI‐Centre) ‘COVID‐19: Living map of the evidence’ and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health ’NIPH systematic and living map on COVID‐19 evidence’. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT‐PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS‐CoV‐2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT‐PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre‐pandemic samples). Data collection and analysis We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS‐2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta‐analysis, we fitted univariate random‐effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random‐effects logistic regression models. We tabulated result...

show abstract

Comparison of four commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG immuno-assays in RT-PCR negative patients with suspect CT findings

Cited by 3 publications

References 18 publications

Evaluation of a Broad Panel of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Tests for Diagnostic Use

Evaluation of a Broad Panel of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Tests for Diagnostic Use

Lessons from COVID‐19: Aspects of prevention, therapeutics, and diagnostics against SARS‐CoV‐2 with special focus on JN.1 and XBB sublineages

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About