Diagnostic Performance of Three Serological Assays for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection

S. Dildar, Asma Danish, M. Imam, A. Naz, T. Shamsi
{"title":"Diagnostic Performance of Three Serological Assays for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection","authors":"S. Dildar, Asma Danish, M. Imam, A. Naz, T. Shamsi","doi":"10.21089/NJHS.54.0162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of Electrochemiluminescence (ECLIA) enzyme linked immunosorbent (ELISA) and lateral flow Immunofluorescence (LFIA) for anti-SARS-COV-2 antibody detection. Materials and Methods: Sensitivity was calculated with convalescent plasma (CP) donor’s samples. Specificity was checked by using pre-pandemic October 2019 samples. All samples were tested for anti-SARS-COV-2 antibody by using Electrochemiluminescence (ECLIA), Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and Lateral flow Immunofluorescence (LFIA) assay. Results: Total 55 patients were included, 45 patients were CP donors and 10 were Pre-Pandemic October 2019 samples archived from our blood bank. The ECLIA-total antibody, ELISA-IgG and LLFIA-IgG were positive in 41 (91.1%), 34 (75.5%) and 44 (97.75%) respectively. The highest sensitivity was observed for LFIA with highest specificity among all three assays. There was almost perfect agreement between LFIA and ECLIA (k=0.936, p<0.001) but there was fair agreement between LFIA and ELISA (k=0.412, p=0.001) and ECLIA and ELISA (k=0.357, p=0.001). Conclusion: The LFIA showed a higher sensitivity and specificity in comparison with ECLIA and ELISA. It might be due to fact that LFIA detect antibody against ncleocapsid and spike protein as well of SARS- COV-2 virus, while ECLIA and ELISA detects antibodies only against “N” Protein of SARS- COV-2 virus. Keywords: Convalescent plasma donors, Lateral flow Immunofluorescence assay, Electrochemiluminescence assay, Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, Performance.","PeriodicalId":441304,"journal":{"name":"National Journal of Health Sciences","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Journal of Health Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21089/NJHS.54.0162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of Electrochemiluminescence (ECLIA) enzyme linked immunosorbent (ELISA) and lateral flow Immunofluorescence (LFIA) for anti-SARS-COV-2 antibody detection. Materials and Methods: Sensitivity was calculated with convalescent plasma (CP) donor’s samples. Specificity was checked by using pre-pandemic October 2019 samples. All samples were tested for anti-SARS-COV-2 antibody by using Electrochemiluminescence (ECLIA), Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and Lateral flow Immunofluorescence (LFIA) assay. Results: Total 55 patients were included, 45 patients were CP donors and 10 were Pre-Pandemic October 2019 samples archived from our blood bank. The ECLIA-total antibody, ELISA-IgG and LLFIA-IgG were positive in 41 (91.1%), 34 (75.5%) and 44 (97.75%) respectively. The highest sensitivity was observed for LFIA with highest specificity among all three assays. There was almost perfect agreement between LFIA and ECLIA (k=0.936, p<0.001) but there was fair agreement between LFIA and ELISA (k=0.412, p=0.001) and ECLIA and ELISA (k=0.357, p=0.001). Conclusion: The LFIA showed a higher sensitivity and specificity in comparison with ECLIA and ELISA. It might be due to fact that LFIA detect antibody against ncleocapsid and spike protein as well of SARS- COV-2 virus, while ECLIA and ELISA detects antibodies only against “N” Protein of SARS- COV-2 virus. Keywords: Convalescent plasma donors, Lateral flow Immunofluorescence assay, Electrochemiluminescence assay, Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, Performance.
抗sars - cov -2抗体三种血清学检测方法的诊断性能
摘要:目的:评价电化学发光(ECLIA)酶联免疫吸附(ELISA)和侧流免疫荧光(LFIA)检测抗sars - cov -2抗体的诊断性能。材料与方法:用恢复期血浆(CP)供体样品计算灵敏度。使用2019年10月大流行前的样本检查特异性。采用电化学发光法(ECLIA)、酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA)和侧流免疫荧光法(LFIA)检测所有样品的抗sars - cov -2抗体。结果:共纳入55例患者,其中45例为CP献血者,10例为2019年10月大流行前的血库样本。eclia总抗体阳性41例(91.1%),ELISA-IgG阳性34例(75.5%),LLFIA-IgG阳性44例(97.75%)。三种检测方法中,LFIA的灵敏度最高,特异性最高。LFIA与ECLIA结果几乎完全吻合(k=0.936, p<0.001),而LFIA与ELISA结果基本吻合(k=0.412, p=0.001), ECLIA与ELISA结果基本吻合(k=0.357, p=0.001)。结论:与ECLIA和ELISA相比,LFIA具有更高的敏感性和特异性。这可能是由于LFIA检测到SARS- COV-2病毒的核衣壳和刺突蛋白抗体,而ECLIA和ELISA仅检测到SARS- COV-2病毒的“N”蛋白抗体。关键词:恢复期血浆供体,侧流式免疫荧光法,电化学发光法,酶联免疫吸附法,性能
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信