期刊
FRONTIERS IN CELLULAR AND INFECTION MICROBIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -出版社
FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.787987
关键词
SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; serological test; ELISA; rapid test; diagnosis; Ecuador
This study evaluated the clinical performance of seven commercial serological tests for COVID-19 diagnosis in South America. The results showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, but poor accuracy for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM.
BackgroundAlthough RT-qPCR remains the gold-standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, anti-SARS-CoV-2 serology-based assays have been widely used during 2020 as an alternative for individual and mass testing, and are currently used for seroprevalence studies. ObjectiveTo study the clinical performance of seven commercial serological tests for COVID-19 diagnosis available in South America. MethodsWe conducted a blind evaluation of five lateral-flow immunoassays (LFIA) and two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. ResultsWe found no statistically significant differences among ELISA kits and LFIAs for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG sensitivity (values ranging from 76.4% to 83.5%) and specificity (100% for the seven serological assays). For anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM, the five LFIAs have a significantly higher sensitivity for samples collected 15 days after the first time RT-qPCR positive test, with values ranging from 47.1% to 88.2%; moreover, the specificity varied from 85% to 100%, but the only LFIA brand with a 100% specificity had the lowest sensitivity. ConclusionThe diagnostic performance of the seven serological tests was acceptable for the seven brands tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection for seroprevalence screening purposes. On the other hand, our results show the lack of accuracy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM detection in LFIAs as a tool for SARS-CoV-2 acute-phase infection diagnosis.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据