Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Castejon,Márcia J.
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Yamashiro,Rosemeire, Oliveira,Elaine L., Silveira,Edilene R. P., Hong,Marisa A., Oliveira,Carmem Aparecida F., Silva,Valéria O., Ahagon,Cintia M., Lima,Ana Késia S., Lindoso,José Angelo L., Brígido,Luís Fernando M.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1676-24442021000100420
Resumo: ABSTRACT Introduction: Due to urgency and demand of a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, numerous Sars-CoV-2 immunoassays have been rapidly developed. Objective: This study aimed at assessing the performance of rapid Sars-CoV-2 antibody test in comparison to high-throughput serological assays. Methods: A total of 86 serum samples were evaluated in the three assays: a lateral flow immunoassay - Wondfo Sars-CoV-2 Antibody Test (WRT) - and two chemiluminescence immunoassays: Elecsys Anti-Sars-CoV-2 (ECLIA), and Sars-CoV-2 IgG (CMIA-IgG). Results: The estimated diagnostic sensitivities of serological tests in the evaluation of serum samples from the epidemiological survey were: WRT 59% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43.4%-72.9%], ECLIA 66.7% (51%-79.4%), and CMIA-IgG 61.5% (47.1%-73%). Meanwhile, the estimated diagnostic specificity was for WRT 78.7% (95% CI 65.1%-88%), ECLIA 72.3% (58.2%-83.1%), and CMIA-IgG 76.6% (74%-95.5%). The sensitivity and specificity values were lower than manufacturers’ claimed. Although 16.2% (14/86) of serological results were discordant among the three Sars-CoV-2 serological assays, the degree of agreement by the kappa index was adequate: WRT/CMIA-IgG [0.757 (95% CI 0.615-0.899)], WRT/ECLIA [0.715 (0.565-0.864)], and ECLIA/CMIA-IgG [0.858 (0.748-0.968)]. Conclusion: The serological testing may be a useful diagnostic tool, which reinforces its careful evaluation, and, as well as the correct time to use it.
id SBP-1_90099fbc2b39da61a28a23acc8b6f5fb
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1676-24442021000100420
network_acronym_str SBP-1
network_name_str Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassayscoronavirus infectionsserologyantibodiespoint of care testingimmunoassaybetacoronavirusABSTRACT Introduction: Due to urgency and demand of a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, numerous Sars-CoV-2 immunoassays have been rapidly developed. Objective: This study aimed at assessing the performance of rapid Sars-CoV-2 antibody test in comparison to high-throughput serological assays. Methods: A total of 86 serum samples were evaluated in the three assays: a lateral flow immunoassay - Wondfo Sars-CoV-2 Antibody Test (WRT) - and two chemiluminescence immunoassays: Elecsys Anti-Sars-CoV-2 (ECLIA), and Sars-CoV-2 IgG (CMIA-IgG). Results: The estimated diagnostic sensitivities of serological tests in the evaluation of serum samples from the epidemiological survey were: WRT 59% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43.4%-72.9%], ECLIA 66.7% (51%-79.4%), and CMIA-IgG 61.5% (47.1%-73%). Meanwhile, the estimated diagnostic specificity was for WRT 78.7% (95% CI 65.1%-88%), ECLIA 72.3% (58.2%-83.1%), and CMIA-IgG 76.6% (74%-95.5%). The sensitivity and specificity values were lower than manufacturers’ claimed. Although 16.2% (14/86) of serological results were discordant among the three Sars-CoV-2 serological assays, the degree of agreement by the kappa index was adequate: WRT/CMIA-IgG [0.757 (95% CI 0.615-0.899)], WRT/ECLIA [0.715 (0.565-0.864)], and ECLIA/CMIA-IgG [0.858 (0.748-0.968)]. Conclusion: The serological testing may be a useful diagnostic tool, which reinforces its careful evaluation, and, as well as the correct time to use it.Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia Clínica2021-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1676-24442021000100420Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial v.57 2021reponame:Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia (SBP)instacron:SBP10.5935/1676-2444.20210040info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCastejon,Márcia J.Yamashiro,RosemeireOliveira,Elaine L.Silveira,Edilene R. P.Hong,Marisa A.Oliveira,Carmem Aparecida F.Silva,Valéria O.Ahagon,Cintia M.Lima,Ana Késia S.Lindoso,José Angelo L.Brígido,Luís Fernando M.eng2021-11-25T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1676-24442021000100420Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/jbpmlhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||jbpml@sbpc.org.br1678-47741676-2444opendoar:2021-11-25T00:00Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia (SBP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays
title Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays
spellingShingle Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays
Castejon,Márcia J.
coronavirus infections
serology
antibodies
point of care testing
immunoassay
betacoronavirus
title_short Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays
title_full Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays
title_fullStr Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays
title_full_unstemmed Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays
title_sort Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays
author Castejon,Márcia J.
author_facet Castejon,Márcia J.
Yamashiro,Rosemeire
Oliveira,Elaine L.
Silveira,Edilene R. P.
Hong,Marisa A.
Oliveira,Carmem Aparecida F.
Silva,Valéria O.
Ahagon,Cintia M.
Lima,Ana Késia S.
Lindoso,José Angelo L.
Brígido,Luís Fernando M.
author_role author
author2 Yamashiro,Rosemeire
Oliveira,Elaine L.
Silveira,Edilene R. P.
Hong,Marisa A.
Oliveira,Carmem Aparecida F.
Silva,Valéria O.
Ahagon,Cintia M.
Lima,Ana Késia S.
Lindoso,José Angelo L.
Brígido,Luís Fernando M.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Castejon,Márcia J.
Yamashiro,Rosemeire
Oliveira,Elaine L.
Silveira,Edilene R. P.
Hong,Marisa A.
Oliveira,Carmem Aparecida F.
Silva,Valéria O.
Ahagon,Cintia M.
Lima,Ana Késia S.
Lindoso,José Angelo L.
Brígido,Luís Fernando M.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv coronavirus infections
serology
antibodies
point of care testing
immunoassay
betacoronavirus
topic coronavirus infections
serology
antibodies
point of care testing
immunoassay
betacoronavirus
description ABSTRACT Introduction: Due to urgency and demand of a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, numerous Sars-CoV-2 immunoassays have been rapidly developed. Objective: This study aimed at assessing the performance of rapid Sars-CoV-2 antibody test in comparison to high-throughput serological assays. Methods: A total of 86 serum samples were evaluated in the three assays: a lateral flow immunoassay - Wondfo Sars-CoV-2 Antibody Test (WRT) - and two chemiluminescence immunoassays: Elecsys Anti-Sars-CoV-2 (ECLIA), and Sars-CoV-2 IgG (CMIA-IgG). Results: The estimated diagnostic sensitivities of serological tests in the evaluation of serum samples from the epidemiological survey were: WRT 59% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43.4%-72.9%], ECLIA 66.7% (51%-79.4%), and CMIA-IgG 61.5% (47.1%-73%). Meanwhile, the estimated diagnostic specificity was for WRT 78.7% (95% CI 65.1%-88%), ECLIA 72.3% (58.2%-83.1%), and CMIA-IgG 76.6% (74%-95.5%). The sensitivity and specificity values were lower than manufacturers’ claimed. Although 16.2% (14/86) of serological results were discordant among the three Sars-CoV-2 serological assays, the degree of agreement by the kappa index was adequate: WRT/CMIA-IgG [0.757 (95% CI 0.615-0.899)], WRT/ECLIA [0.715 (0.565-0.864)], and ECLIA/CMIA-IgG [0.858 (0.748-0.968)]. Conclusion: The serological testing may be a useful diagnostic tool, which reinforces its careful evaluation, and, as well as the correct time to use it.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1676-24442021000100420
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1676-24442021000100420
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.5935/1676-2444.20210040
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv
Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia Clínica
publisher.none.fl_str_mv
Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia Clínica
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial v.57 2021
reponame:Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia (SBP)
instacron:SBP
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia (SBP)
instacron_str SBP
institution SBP
reponame_str Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)
collection Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia (SBP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||jbpml@sbpc.org.br
_version_ 1752122297870712832