抗sars - cov -2 IgM和IgG抗体血清学定性检测方法的验证和比较

Q2 Medicine
Maša Štebih, Milan Skitek, Aleš Jerin
{"title":"抗sars - cov -2 IgM和IgG抗体血清学定性检测方法的验证和比较","authors":"Maša Štebih,&nbsp;Milan Skitek,&nbsp;Aleš Jerin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Due to their wide application in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we verified and compared three qualitative serological methods in order to select the most optimal that will best serve its purpose under laboratory conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed the diagnostic characteristics of two automated serological methods (Roche Elecsys<sup>®</sup> Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) and a POCT test (Colloidal Gold Method SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Assay Kit). In the process of verification, analytical precision was also assessed for the automated assays.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Diagnostic characteristics were determined by measuring antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in 91 RT-PCR-negative and 60 RT-PCR-positive samples. The POCT test gave the highest number of false positive cases (8.61%). Roche Elecsys<sup>®</sup> Anti-SARS-CoV-2 gave only 2.65% false positivity and showed the highest diagnostic sensitivity of 98.33% (95% CI: 91.06-99.96), while Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG method showed 100.00% (95% CI: 96.03-100.00) diagnostic specificity and an almost perfect agreement with Roche Elecsys<sup>®</sup> Anti-SARS-CoV-2. When assessing the precision of the automated methods, we observed some variability in the positive control samples, but the values did not affect clinical interpretation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both automated methods demonstrate superior diagnostic characteristics compared to the Colloidal Gold Method, and this POCT test is not considered as an appropriate choice for routine testing. The two automated methods showed low variability without altering the results and their interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":37192,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine","volume":"33 2","pages":"145-158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/58/78/ejifcc-33-145.PMC9562488.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Verification and Comparison of Qualitative Serological Assays for Anti-SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG Antibodies Detection.\",\"authors\":\"Maša Štebih,&nbsp;Milan Skitek,&nbsp;Aleš Jerin\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Due to their wide application in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we verified and compared three qualitative serological methods in order to select the most optimal that will best serve its purpose under laboratory conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed the diagnostic characteristics of two automated serological methods (Roche Elecsys<sup>®</sup> Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) and a POCT test (Colloidal Gold Method SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Assay Kit). In the process of verification, analytical precision was also assessed for the automated assays.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Diagnostic characteristics were determined by measuring antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in 91 RT-PCR-negative and 60 RT-PCR-positive samples. The POCT test gave the highest number of false positive cases (8.61%). Roche Elecsys<sup>®</sup> Anti-SARS-CoV-2 gave only 2.65% false positivity and showed the highest diagnostic sensitivity of 98.33% (95% CI: 91.06-99.96), while Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG method showed 100.00% (95% CI: 96.03-100.00) diagnostic specificity and an almost perfect agreement with Roche Elecsys<sup>®</sup> Anti-SARS-CoV-2. When assessing the precision of the automated methods, we observed some variability in the positive control samples, but the values did not affect clinical interpretation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both automated methods demonstrate superior diagnostic characteristics compared to the Colloidal Gold Method, and this POCT test is not considered as an appropriate choice for routine testing. The two automated methods showed low variability without altering the results and their interpretation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":\"33 2\",\"pages\":\"145-158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/58/78/ejifcc-33-145.PMC9562488.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于三种定性血清学方法在SARS-CoV-2大流行中的广泛应用,我们对三种定性血清学方法进行了验证和比较,以便在实验室条件下选择最优的方法。方法:我们评估了两种自动血清学方法(罗氏Elecsys®抗SARS-CoV-2和雅培SARS-CoV-2 IgG)和POCT试验(胶体金法SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG抗体测定试剂盒)的诊断特征。在验证过程中,还对自动分析的分析精度进行了评估。结果:通过检测91份rt - pcr阴性样本和60份rt - pcr阳性样本的SARS-CoV-2抗体,确定了诊断特征。POCT检出的假阳性病例最多(8.61%)。罗氏Elecsys®anti - cov -2的假阳性率仅为2.65%,诊断灵敏度最高为98.33% (95% CI: 91.06 ~ 99.96),而雅培SARS-CoV-2 IgG法的诊断特异性为100.00% (95% CI: 96.03 ~ 100.00),与罗氏Elecsys®anti - cov -2几乎完全一致。在评估自动化方法的精度时,我们在阳性对照样本中观察到一些变异性,但这些值并不影响临床解释。结论:与胶体金法相比,这两种自动化方法都具有优越的诊断特征,POCT试验不被认为是常规检测的合适选择。两种自动化方法在不改变结果及其解释的情况下显示出低变异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Verification and Comparison of Qualitative Serological Assays for Anti-SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG Antibodies Detection.

Verification and Comparison of Qualitative Serological Assays for Anti-SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG Antibodies Detection.

Verification and Comparison of Qualitative Serological Assays for Anti-SARS-COV-2 IgM and IgG Antibodies Detection.

Background: Due to their wide application in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we verified and compared three qualitative serological methods in order to select the most optimal that will best serve its purpose under laboratory conditions.

Methods: We assessed the diagnostic characteristics of two automated serological methods (Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) and a POCT test (Colloidal Gold Method SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Assay Kit). In the process of verification, analytical precision was also assessed for the automated assays.

Results: Diagnostic characteristics were determined by measuring antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in 91 RT-PCR-negative and 60 RT-PCR-positive samples. The POCT test gave the highest number of false positive cases (8.61%). Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 gave only 2.65% false positivity and showed the highest diagnostic sensitivity of 98.33% (95% CI: 91.06-99.96), while Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG method showed 100.00% (95% CI: 96.03-100.00) diagnostic specificity and an almost perfect agreement with Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2. When assessing the precision of the automated methods, we observed some variability in the positive control samples, but the values did not affect clinical interpretation.

Conclusion: Both automated methods demonstrate superior diagnostic characteristics compared to the Colloidal Gold Method, and this POCT test is not considered as an appropriate choice for routine testing. The two automated methods showed low variability without altering the results and their interpretation.

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
CiteScore
2.30
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