Clinical chemistry
-
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected over 21 million people worldwide since August 16, 2020. Compared to PCR and serology tests, SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays are underdeveloped, despite their potential to identify active infection and monitor disease progression. ⋯ The reported SARS-CoV-2 Simoa antigen assay is the first to detect viral antigens in the plasma of patients who were COVID-19 positive to date. These data show that SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens in the blood are associated with disease progression, such as respiratory failure, in COVID-19 cases with severe disease.
-
Commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological assays based on different viral antigens have been approved for the qualitative determination of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, there are limited published data associating the results from commercial assays with neutralizing antibodies. ⋯ COVID-19 patients generate an antibody response to multiple viral proteins such that the calibrator ratios on the Roche, Abbott, and EUROIMMUN assays are all associated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralization. Nevertheless, commercial serological assays have poor NPA for SARS-CoV-2 neutralization, making them imperfect proxies for neutralization.
-
Comparative Study
Side-by-Side Comparison of Three Fully Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays with a Focus on Specificity.
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous new serological test systems for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies rapidly have become available. However, the clinical performance of many of these is still insufficiently described. Therefore, we compared 3 commercial CE-marked, SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays side by side. ⋯ We found diagnostically relevant differences in specificities for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin that have a significant impact on the positive predictive values of these tests.
-
Accurate diagnostic strategies to identify SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals rapidly for management of patient care and protection of health care personnel are urgently needed. The predominant diagnostic test is viral RNA detection by RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs specimens, however the results are not promptly obtainable in all patient care locations. Routine laboratory testing, in contrast, is readily available with a turn-around time (TAT) usually within 1-2 hours. ⋯ This model employing routine laboratory test results offers opportunities for early and rapid identification of high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infected patients before their RT-PCR results are available. It may play an important role in assisting the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients in areas where RT-PCR testing is not accessible due to financial or supply constraints.
-
Comparative Study
Clinical Performance of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays.
The recent emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in a rapid proliferation of serologic assays. However, little is known about their clinical performance. Here, we compared two commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays. ⋯ The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 assay had fewer false positive and false negative results than the EI assay. However, diagnostic sensitivity was poor in both assays during the first 14 days of symptoms.