评估以生物标记物为指导管理 COVID-19 的床旁抗体检测的可行性和有效性

Cavan Reilly, Eleftherios Mylonakis, Robin Dewar, Barnaby Young, Jacqueline Nordwall, Sanjay Bhagani, Po-ying Chia, Ruby Davis, Clark Files, Adit A Ginde, Timothy Hatlen, Marie Helleberg, Awori Hayanga, Tomas O Jensen, Mamta K Jain, Ioannis Kalomenidis, Kami Kim, Perrine Lallemand, Birgitte Lindegaard, Anupama Menon, Katherine Ognenovska, Garyfallia Poulakou, Birgit Thorup Røge, Angela J Rogers, Katy Shaw-Saliba, Uriel Sandkovsky, Barbara W Trautner, Shikha S Vasudeva, Andrew Vekstein, Kimberley Viens, James Wyncoll, Brian DuChateau, Zhenxing Zhang, Shujiang Wu, Abdel G Babiker, Victoria Davey, Annetine Gelijns, Elizabeth Higgs, Virginia Kan, Jens Lundgren, Gail V Matthews, H Cliff Lane
{"title":"评估以生物标记物为指导管理 COVID-19 的床旁抗体检测的可行性和有效性","authors":"Cavan Reilly, Eleftherios Mylonakis, Robin Dewar, Barnaby Young, Jacqueline Nordwall, Sanjay Bhagani, Po-ying Chia, Ruby Davis, Clark Files, Adit A Ginde, Timothy Hatlen, Marie Helleberg, Awori Hayanga, Tomas O Jensen, Mamta K Jain, Ioannis Kalomenidis, Kami Kim, Perrine Lallemand, Birgitte Lindegaard, Anupama Menon, Katherine Ognenovska, Garyfallia Poulakou, Birgit Thorup Røge, Angela J Rogers, Katy Shaw-Saliba, Uriel Sandkovsky, Barbara W Trautner, Shikha S Vasudeva, Andrew Vekstein, Kimberley Viens, James Wyncoll, Brian DuChateau, Zhenxing Zhang, Shujiang Wu, Abdel G Babiker, Victoria Davey, Annetine Gelijns, Elizabeth Higgs, Virginia Kan, Jens Lundgren, Gail V Matthews, H Cliff Lane","doi":"10.1093/infdis/jiae452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Biomarker guided therapy could improve management of COVID-19 inpatients. Although some results indicate that antibody tests are prognostic, little is known about patient management using point-of-care (POC) antibody tests. Methods COVID-19 inpatients were recruited to evaluate 2 POC tests: LumiraDX and RightSign. Ease of use data was collected. Blood was also collected for centralized testing using established antibody assays (GenScript cPass). A nested case-control study assessed if POC tests conducted on stored specimens were predictive of time to sustained recovery, mortality, and a composite safety outcome. Results While both POC tests exhibited moderate agreement with the GenScript assay (both agreeing with 89% of antibody determinations), they were significantly different from the GenScript assay. Treating the GenScript assay as the gold standard, the LumiraDX assay had 99.5% sensitivity and 58.1% specificity while the RightSign assay had 89.5% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity. The LumiraDX assay frequently gave indeterminant results. Both tests were significantly associated with clinical outcomes. Conclusions Although both POC tests deviated moderately from the GenScript assay, they predicted outcomes of interest. The RightSign test was easier to use and was more likely to detect those lacking antibody compared to the LumiraDX test treating GenScript as the gold standard.","PeriodicalId":501010,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Infectious Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the feasibility and efficacy of point-of-care antibody tests for biomarker guided management of COVID-19\",\"authors\":\"Cavan Reilly, Eleftherios Mylonakis, Robin Dewar, Barnaby Young, Jacqueline Nordwall, Sanjay Bhagani, Po-ying Chia, Ruby Davis, Clark Files, Adit A Ginde, Timothy Hatlen, Marie Helleberg, Awori Hayanga, Tomas O Jensen, Mamta K Jain, Ioannis Kalomenidis, Kami Kim, Perrine Lallemand, Birgitte Lindegaard, Anupama Menon, Katherine Ognenovska, Garyfallia Poulakou, Birgit Thorup Røge, Angela J Rogers, Katy Shaw-Saliba, Uriel Sandkovsky, Barbara W Trautner, Shikha S Vasudeva, Andrew Vekstein, Kimberley Viens, James Wyncoll, Brian DuChateau, Zhenxing Zhang, Shujiang Wu, Abdel G Babiker, Victoria Davey, Annetine Gelijns, Elizabeth Higgs, Virginia Kan, Jens Lundgren, Gail V Matthews, H Cliff Lane\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/infdis/jiae452\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Biomarker guided therapy could improve management of COVID-19 inpatients. Although some results indicate that antibody tests are prognostic, little is known about patient management using point-of-care (POC) antibody tests. Methods COVID-19 inpatients were recruited to evaluate 2 POC tests: LumiraDX and RightSign. Ease of use data was collected. Blood was also collected for centralized testing using established antibody assays (GenScript cPass). A nested case-control study assessed if POC tests conducted on stored specimens were predictive of time to sustained recovery, mortality, and a composite safety outcome. Results While both POC tests exhibited moderate agreement with the GenScript assay (both agreeing with 89% of antibody determinations), they were significantly different from the GenScript assay. Treating the GenScript assay as the gold standard, the LumiraDX assay had 99.5% sensitivity and 58.1% specificity while the RightSign assay had 89.5% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity. The LumiraDX assay frequently gave indeterminant results. Both tests were significantly associated with clinical outcomes. Conclusions Although both POC tests deviated moderately from the GenScript assay, they predicted outcomes of interest. The RightSign test was easier to use and was more likely to detect those lacking antibody compared to the LumiraDX test treating GenScript as the gold standard.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501010,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae452\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae452","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 生物标志物指导疗法可改善 COVID-19 住院患者的管理。尽管一些结果表明抗体检测可预测预后,但人们对使用床旁(POC)抗体检测进行患者管理的情况知之甚少。方法 招募 COVID-19 住院患者对两种 POC 检测进行评估:LumiraDX和RightSign。收集了易用性数据。此外,还采集了血液,以便使用成熟的抗体检测方法(GenScript cPass)进行集中检测。一项巢式病例对照研究评估了对储存标本进行的 POC 检验是否能预测持续康复时间、死亡率和综合安全性结果。结果 虽然这两种 POC 检验与 GenScript 检测法显示出中等程度的一致性(均与 89% 的抗体测定结果一致),但它们与 GenScript 检测法存在显著差异。将 GenScript 检测法视为金标准,LumiraDX 检测法的灵敏度为 99.5%,特异性为 58.1%,而 RightSign 检测法的灵敏度为 89.5%,特异性为 84.0%。LumiraDX测定经常给出不确定的结果。两种检测方法都与临床结果密切相关。结论 虽然这两种 POC 检测与 GenScript 检测的偏差不大,但它们都能预测相关结果。与将 GenScript 作为金标准的 LumiraDX 检测相比,RightSign 检测更易于使用,更有可能检测出缺乏抗体的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the feasibility and efficacy of point-of-care antibody tests for biomarker guided management of COVID-19
Background Biomarker guided therapy could improve management of COVID-19 inpatients. Although some results indicate that antibody tests are prognostic, little is known about patient management using point-of-care (POC) antibody tests. Methods COVID-19 inpatients were recruited to evaluate 2 POC tests: LumiraDX and RightSign. Ease of use data was collected. Blood was also collected for centralized testing using established antibody assays (GenScript cPass). A nested case-control study assessed if POC tests conducted on stored specimens were predictive of time to sustained recovery, mortality, and a composite safety outcome. Results While both POC tests exhibited moderate agreement with the GenScript assay (both agreeing with 89% of antibody determinations), they were significantly different from the GenScript assay. Treating the GenScript assay as the gold standard, the LumiraDX assay had 99.5% sensitivity and 58.1% specificity while the RightSign assay had 89.5% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity. The LumiraDX assay frequently gave indeterminant results. Both tests were significantly associated with clinical outcomes. Conclusions Although both POC tests deviated moderately from the GenScript assay, they predicted outcomes of interest. The RightSign test was easier to use and was more likely to detect those lacking antibody compared to the LumiraDX test treating GenScript as the gold standard.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信