| Autor: |
Rivera-Olivero, Ismar A., Henríquez-Trujillo, Aquiles R., Kyriakidis, Nikolaos C., Ortiz-Prado, Esteban, Laglaguano, Juan Carlos, Vallejo-Janeta, Alexander Paolo, Lozada, Tannya, Garcia-Bereguiain, Miguel Angel |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Frontiers in Cellular & Infection Microbiology; 2/18/2022, p1-6, 6p |
| Abstrakt: |
Background: Although RT-qPCR remains the gold-standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, anti-SARS-CoV-2 serology-based assays have been widely used during 2020 as an alternative for individual and mass testing, and are currently used for seroprevalence studies. Objective: To study the clinical performance of seven commercial serological tests for COVID-19 diagnosis available in South America. Methods: We conducted a blind evaluation of five lateral-flow immunoassays (LFIA) and two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Results: We found no statistically significant differences among ELISA kits and LFIAs for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG sensitivity (values ranging from 76.4% to 83.5%) and specificity (100% for the seven serological assays). For anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM, the five LFIAs have a significantly higher sensitivity for samples collected 15 days after the first time RT-qPCR positive test, with values ranging from 47.1% to 88.2%; moreover, the specificity varied from 85% to 100%, but the only LFIA brand with a 100% specificity had the lowest sensitivity. Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of the seven serological tests was acceptable for the seven brands tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection for seroprevalence screening purposes. On the other hand, our results show the lack of accuracy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM detection in LFIAs as a tool for SARS-CoV-2 acute-phase infection diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
