Evaluation of rapid, cassette immunochromatographic tests in the serological diagnosis of COVID-19

W. Rastawicki, Klaudia Płaza, Adam Pietrusiński
{"title":"Evaluation of rapid, cassette immunochromatographic tests in the serological diagnosis of COVID-19","authors":"W. Rastawicki, Klaudia Płaza, Adam Pietrusiński","doi":"10.32394/mdm.73.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Lateral flow assays (LFIA) are the technology behind low-cost, simple, rapid and portable detection devices popular in biomedicine. Lately, they are very common used in serodiagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The aim of the presented study was to assess the usefulness of selected LFIA in serological diagnosis of COVID-19.\nMethods: The usefulness of seven lateral flow assays in the serodiagnosis of COVID-19 was evaluated (VAZYME, DIAGNOSIS, PCL, INGEZIM, BIOSENSOR, ACCU-TELL, NOVAtest). The study used 107 serum samples obtained from 74 individuals with current SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by RT-PCR. The ELISA-IgG (Euroimmun) was used as the reference assay for sensitivity and specificity testing.\nResults: The highest percentage of positive results was obtained when searching for IgG antibodies with the NOVAtest (40.6%) and DIAGNOSIS (39.2%) sets and the lowest detection for the PCL set - 25.5%. In the case of searching for IgM antibodies in all sets, significantly lower percentages of positive results compared to the IgG class were recorded. In general, all lateral flow assays showed low sensitivity in relation to the Euroimmun ELISA-IgG. The DIAGNOSIS kit (64.5%) was characterized by the highest sensitivity, and the PCL kit was the lowest (38.7%). On the other hand, the specificity of all kits was very high, almost 100% in almost all cases.\nConclusions: Lateral flow assays due to their low sensitivity are not suitable for quick diagnosis of the current SARS-CoV-2 infections and cannot be an alternative to genetic or even antigen tests. They may be used only to retrospectively test the presence of IgG antibodies. However, a negative results of LFIA in suspected disease or after vaccination should be confirmed by more sensitive serological tests.","PeriodicalId":18566,"journal":{"name":"Medycyna doświadczalna i mikrobiologia","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medycyna doświadczalna i mikrobiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32394/mdm.73.03","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

Introduction: Lateral flow assays (LFIA) are the technology behind low-cost, simple, rapid and portable detection devices popular in biomedicine. Lately, they are very common used in serodiagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The aim of the presented study was to assess the usefulness of selected LFIA in serological diagnosis of COVID-19. Methods: The usefulness of seven lateral flow assays in the serodiagnosis of COVID-19 was evaluated (VAZYME, DIAGNOSIS, PCL, INGEZIM, BIOSENSOR, ACCU-TELL, NOVAtest). The study used 107 serum samples obtained from 74 individuals with current SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by RT-PCR. The ELISA-IgG (Euroimmun) was used as the reference assay for sensitivity and specificity testing. Results: The highest percentage of positive results was obtained when searching for IgG antibodies with the NOVAtest (40.6%) and DIAGNOSIS (39.2%) sets and the lowest detection for the PCL set - 25.5%. In the case of searching for IgM antibodies in all sets, significantly lower percentages of positive results compared to the IgG class were recorded. In general, all lateral flow assays showed low sensitivity in relation to the Euroimmun ELISA-IgG. The DIAGNOSIS kit (64.5%) was characterized by the highest sensitivity, and the PCL kit was the lowest (38.7%). On the other hand, the specificity of all kits was very high, almost 100% in almost all cases. Conclusions: Lateral flow assays due to their low sensitivity are not suitable for quick diagnosis of the current SARS-CoV-2 infections and cannot be an alternative to genetic or even antigen tests. They may be used only to retrospectively test the presence of IgG antibodies. However, a negative results of LFIA in suspected disease or after vaccination should be confirmed by more sensitive serological tests.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
快速盒式免疫层析试验在COVID-19血清学诊断中的评价
横向流动分析(LFIA)是一种低成本、简单、快速和便携的生物医学检测设备。最近,它们在SARS-CoV-2感染的血清诊断中非常常用。本研究的目的是评估选定的LFIA在COVID-19血清学诊断中的有用性。方法:评价7种侧流检测(VAZYME、DIAGNOSIS、PCL、INGEZIM、BIOSENSOR、ACCU-TELL、NOVAtest)在COVID-19血清诊断中的应用价值。该研究使用了74例经RT-PCR确诊的SARS-CoV-2感染患者的107份血清样本。采用ELISA-IgG (euroimmune)作为参比法进行敏感性和特异性检测。结果:用NOVAtest组和DIAGNOSIS组搜索IgG抗体阳性率最高(40.6%),阳性率为39.2%,PCL组阳性率最低(25.5%)。在所有集合中搜索IgM抗体的情况下,与IgG类相比,记录的阳性结果百分比显着降低。总的来说,所有的侧流试验都显示出与euroimmune ELISA-IgG相关的低敏感性。诊断试剂盒的灵敏度最高(64.5%),PCL试剂盒的灵敏度最低(38.7%)。另一方面,所有试剂盒的特异性非常高,几乎所有病例的特异性都接近100%。结论:侧流检测灵敏度低,不适合快速诊断当前的SARS-CoV-2感染,不能替代基因检测甚至抗原检测。它们仅可用于回顾性检测IgG抗体的存在。然而,在疑似疾病或接种疫苗后,LFIA阴性结果应通过更敏感的血清学试验加以证实。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of the occurrence of genetic determinants of multi-drug resistance among Acinetobacter baumannii strains Human gut microbiota – its diversity and impact on our health Staphylococcus prettenkoferi – biochemical properties, methods of species identification and clinical significance AmpC cephalosporinases in Escherichia coli Evaluation of rapid, cassette immunochromatographic tests in the serological diagnosis of COVID-19
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1