Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Vilibić-Čavlek, Tatjana; Barbić, Ljubo; Savić, Vladimir; Bogdanić, Maja; Antolašić, Ljiljana; Milašinčić, Ljiljana; Hruškar, Željka; Sabadi, Dario; Perić, Ljiljana; Tabain, Irena; Stevanović, Vladimir

doi:10.37797/ig.40.2.2

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results were calculated, and the antibody index (AI) was expressed as: AI = (sample OD/cut-off serum mean OD) × 10. This was interpreted as follows: AI IgG < 4, negative, 4–6, borderline, >6, positive [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: Comparison of Enzyme Immunoassay, Surrogate Neutralization and Virus Neutralization Test

Vilibic-Cavlek,

Bogdanic,

Borko

et al. 2023

Antibodies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Since sensitivity and specificity vary widely between tests, SARS-CoV-2 serology results should be interpreted with caution. Methods: The study included serum samples from patients who had recovered from COVID-19 (n = 71), individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (n = 84), and asymptomatic individuals (n = 33). All samples were tested for the presence of binding antibodies (enzyme immunoassay; EIA), neutralizing (NT) antibodies (virus neutralization test; VNT), and surrogate NT (sNT) antibodies (surrogate virus neutralization test; sVNT) of SARS-CoV-2. Results: SARS-CoV-2-binding antibodies were detected in 71 (100%) COVID-19 patients, 77 (91.6%) vaccinated individuals, and 4 (12.1%) control subjects. Among EIA-positive samples, VNT was positive (titer ≥ 8) in 100% of COVID-19 patients and 63 (75.0%) of the vaccinated individuals, while sVNT was positive (>30% inhibition) in 62 (87.3%) patients and 59 (70.2%) vaccinated individuals. The analysis of antibody levels showed a significant moderate positive correlation between EIA and VNT, a moderate positive correlation between EIA and sVNT, and a strong positive correlation between VNT and sVNT. The proportion of positive sVNT detection rate was associated with VNT titer. The lowest positivity (72.4%/70.8%) was detected in samples with low NT titers (8/16) and increased progressively from 88.2% in samples with titer 32 to 100% in samples with titer 256. Conclusions: sVNT appeared to be a reliable method for the assessment COVID-19 serology in patients with high antibody levels, while false-negative results were frequently observed in patients with low NT titers.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The titer was defined as the reciprocal of the highest serum dilution that showed at least 50% neutralization. NT antibody titer > 8 was considered positive [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: Comparison of Enzyme Immunoassay, Surrogate Neutralization and Virus Neutralization Test

Vilibic-Cavlek,

Bogdanic,

Borko

et al. 2023

Antibodies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The seropositivity rates detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay varied from 2% to 11.1% and 8.8% to 25.1% after the first and second waves, respectively. The prevalence of NT antibodies was 2.2-5.5% after the first wave and 2.6-18.2% after the second pandemic wave [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] . In a metaanalysis by Rostami et al [50] (2020) on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence worldwide, almost 400,000 people from 23 countries were included with seroprevalence rates in the general population ranging from 0.37% to 22.1% (pooled estimate of 3.38%).…”

Section: Sars-cov-2 In Croatia In the 'One Health' Contextmentioning

confidence: 98%

Human coronaviruses in the "One Health" context

Vilibić-Čavlek,

Ferenc,

Stevanović

et al. 2023

Infektol. glas. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seven human coronaviruses have been identified so far: four seasonal coronaviruses (HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-HKU1) and three novel coronaviruses (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2). While seasonal coronaviruses cause only mild symptoms, novel coronaviruses cause severe and potentially fatal infections. All known coronaviruses originated in animals. Bats are considered as an origin for the majority of coronaviruses capable of infecting humans; however, rodents are proposed as natural hosts for HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1. Different animal species could serve as intermediate hosts including alpacas (HCoV-229E), livestock (HCoV-OC43), civet cats (SARS-CoV), camels (MERS-CoV), and pangolins (SARS-CoV-2). In Croatia, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in humans, pet animals, wildlife, and the environment. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of the ‘One Health’ approach in the surveillance of zoonotic diseases.

show abstract

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69–71) and 98% (95% CI: 98–98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80–86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70–72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63–75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59–77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82–82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65–71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95–97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.

show abstract

Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: Comparison of Enzyme Immunoassay, Surrogate Neutralization and Virus Neutralization Test

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: Comparison of Enzyme Immunoassay, Surrogate Neutralization and Virus Neutralization Test

Human coronaviruses in the "One Health" context

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About