Head-to-Head Accuracy Comparison of Three Commercial COVID-19 IgM/IgG Serology Rapid Tests

三种商用 COVID-19 IgM/IgG 血清学快速检测的头对头准确性比较

阅读:10
作者:Diego O Andrey, Patrick Cohen, Benjamin Meyer, Giulia Torriani, Sabine Yerly, Lena Mazza, Adrien Calame, Isabelle Arm-Vernez, Idris Guessous, Silvia Stringhini, Pascale Roux-Lombard, Lionel Fontao, Thomas Agoritsas, Jerôme Stirnemann, Jean-Luc Reny, Claire-Anne Siegrist, Isabella Eckerle, Laurent Ka

Background

Comparative data of SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG serology rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) is scarce. We thus performed a head-to-head comparison of three RDTs.

Conclusions

RDT-A and RDT-C displayed IgG detection SN and SP above 90% in whole blood. These RDTs could be considered in the absence of routine diagnostic serology facilities.

Methods

In this unmatched case-control study, blood samples from 41 RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases and 50 negative controls were studied. The diagnostic accuracy of three commercially available COVID-19 RDTs: NTBIO (RDT-A), Orient-Gene (RDT-B), and MEDsan (RDT-C), against both a recombinant spike-expressing immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) and Euroimmun IgG ELISA, was assessed. RDT

Results

COVID-19 cases' median time from RT-PCR to serology was 22 days (interquartile range (IQR) 13-31 days). Whole-blood IgG detection with RDT-A, -B, and -C showed 0.93, 0.83, and 0.98 concordance with rIFA. Against rIFA, RDT-A sensitivity (SN) was 92% (95% CI: 78-98) and specificity (SP) 100% (95% CI: 91-100), RDT-B showed 87% SN (95% CI: 72-95) and 98% SP (95% CI: 88-100), and RDT-C 100% SN (95% CI: 88-100) and 98% SP (95% CI: 88-100). Against ELISA, SN and SP were above 90% for all three RDTs. Conclusions: RDT-A and RDT-C displayed IgG detection SN and SP above 90% in whole blood. These RDTs could be considered in the absence of routine diagnostic serology facilities.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。