scholarly journals SARS-CoV-2 serological tests can generate false positive results for samples from patients with chronic inflammatory diseases

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nastya Kharlamova ◽  
Nicky Dunn ◽  
Sahl K Bedri ◽  
Svante Jerling ◽  
Malin Almgren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Inflammatory Diseases ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Chronic Inflammatory Diseases ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Positive Signal ◽  
Lateral Flow Assays ◽  
Positive Results ◽  
Multiplex Bead

AbstractObjectivesPatients with chronic inflammatory diseases are often treated with immunosuppressants and therefore are of particular concern during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Serological tests will improve our understanding of the infection and immunity in this population, unless the tests give false positive results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the specificity of SARS-Cov-2 serological assays with samples from patients with chronic inflammatory diseases collected before April 2019, thus defined as negative.MethodsSamples from patients with multiple sclerosis (MS, n=10), rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n=47) with or without rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP2) and RF +/- systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, n=10), were tested with 17 commercially available lateral flow assays (LFA), two ELISA kits and one in-house developed multiplex bead-based assay.ResultsSix LFA and the in-house IgG assay gave the correct negative results for all samples. However, the majority of assays (n=13), gave false positive signal with samples from patients with RA and SLE. This was most notable in RF positive RA samples. MS samples did not give any false positive in any of the assays.ConclusionThe majority of the verified serological assays were sensitive to interfering antibodies in samples from patients with chronic inflammatory diseases and therefore may have poor specificity in this context. For these patients, the risk of false positivity should be considered when interpreting results of the SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.

scholarly journals False Positive Results in SARS-CoV-2 Serological Tests for Samples From Patients With Chronic Inflammatory Diseases

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nastya Kharlamova ◽  
Nicky Dunn ◽  
Sahl K. Bedri ◽  
Svante Jerling ◽  
Malin Almgren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Inflammatory Diseases ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Chronic Inflammatory Diseases ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Positive Signal ◽  
Lateral Flow Assays ◽  
Positive Results ◽  
Multiplex Bead

Patients with chronic inflammatory diseases are often treated with immunosuppressants and therefore are of particular concern during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Serological tests will improve our understanding of the infection and immunity in this population, unless they tests give false positive results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the specificity of SARS-Cov-2 serological assays using samples from patients with chronic inflammatory diseases collected prior to April 2019, thus defined as negative. Samples from patients with multiple sclerosis (MS, n=10), rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n=47) with or without rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP2) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, n=10) with or without RF, were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using 17 commercially available lateral flow assays (LFA), two ELISA kits and one in-house developed IgG multiplex bead-based assay. Six LFA and the in-house validated IgG assay correctly produced negative results for all samples. However, the majority of assays (n=13), gave false positive signal for samples from patients with RA and SLE. This was most notable in samples from RF positive RA patients. No false positive samples were detected in any assay using samples from patients with MS. Poor specificity of commercial serological assays could possibly be, at least partly, due to interfering antibodies in samples from patients with chronic inflammatory diseases. For these patients, the risk of false positivity should be considered when interpreting results of the SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.

scholarly journals Identification of etiological agents of selected bacterial and viral infections based on serological tests

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 1162-1178
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Lewandowicz-Uszyńska ◽  
Piotr Naporowski ◽  
Gerard Pasternak ◽  
Danuta Witkowska
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
Cellular Response ◽  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Viral Infections ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Main Role ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Positive Results

The human immune system’s response to infection is closely related with the type of pathogen. First, a rapid, metabolically inexpensive and non-specific innate immunity is induced, then a specific acquired immunity is activated. In bacterial infections caused by intracellular pathogens, the main role is played by cellular response. In infections caused by bacterial extracellular pathogens, a crucial role is played by antibodies. The clinical symptoms of bacterial and viral infections very often are similar, which is why diagnosing them based only on medical history and physical examination is insufficient. To identify the etiological factors of infections differentiating media, biochemical tests, molecular methods and serological tests are used. The detection of microorganisms or their genetic material can be performed within a short time after the occurrence of an infection. The detection of antibodies is possible only in the appropriate time called the serological window. In a serological diagnostic of infections there are problems with an appropriate interpretation of obtained results. Cross-reactivity can give false positive results for the diagnosis of Chlamydophila pneumonia infection. The problem with the detection of Borrelia burgdorferi infection can be caused by a simultaneous coinfection with different spirochetes, syphilis, mononucleosis or HIV. In serological diagnostics of bacterial infections, the administration of antibiotics to patients before taking serum samples can be responsible for false negative results. Another reason for such results can be a weak humoral response in infected patients. In viral infections, false positive results can be caused by a coinfection of different viruses, especially from the same family or by bacterial or protozoal coinfections or by autoimmune diseases. False-negative results in viral infections often are caused by the early phase of an infection. To properly recognize an etiological factor of infection it is necessary to use an appropriate method, precision of test and collect samples at the appropriate time.

scholarly journals Immunodiagnosis of histoplasmosis in a compromised host

1978 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 558-565
Author(s):  
G A Land ◽  
J H Foxworth ◽  
K E Smith
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
Inflammatory Diseases ◽  
Latex Agglutination ◽  
Agglutination Test ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Screening Protocol ◽  
Immunosuppressed Patients ◽  
Yeast Phase ◽  
Positive Results ◽  
Compromised Patients

Three serological tests for the diagnosis of histoplasmosis were compared for sensitivity and specificity in serum from blood bank donors, patients with histoplasmosis, and infected or noninfected immunosuppressed patients. The histoplasmin latex agglutination test was positive in 9% of the normal patients, 33% of the histoplasmosis patients, and 61% of the noninfected immunosuppressed patients. Since the test is prone to many false-positive results in patients with inflammatory diseases or non-Histoplasma infections, it has limited potential as a screening test among compromised patients. Immunodiffusion and counterimmunoelectrophoresis using a mycelial antigen were found to be more sensitive than either test using a combined yeast and mycelial antigen or a pure yeast phase antigen. Counterimmunoelectrophoresis at pH 7.2 proved to be the test of choice for serodiagnosis of histoplasmosis, resolving 85% of the immunocompetent infected patients and 100% of the infected immunosuppressed patients. Results indicated that counterimmunoelectrophoresis in conjunction with immunodiffusion could be used as a screening protocol to determine infection in incoming patients in a cancer hospital.

scholarly journals Immunoblot Assay Using Recombinant Antigens as a Supplemental Test To Confirm the Presence of Antibodies to Trypanosoma cruzi

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Y. Cheng ◽  
Chi-Deu Chang ◽  
Vince A. Salbilla ◽  
Louis V. Kirchhoff ◽  
David A. Leiby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trypanosoma Cruzi ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Assay Sensitivity ◽  
Immunoblot Assay ◽  
Recombinant Antigens ◽  
Persistent Problem ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Positive Results

ABSTRACT The diagnosis of chronic Chagas' disease is generally made by detecting antibodies to Trypanosoma cruzi. Most conventional serological tests are based on lysates of whole parasites or semipurified antigen fractions from T. cruzi epimastigotes grown in culture. The occurrence of inconclusive and false-positive results has been a persistent problem with the conventional assays, and there is no universally accepted gold standard for confirmation of positive test results. We describe here an immunoblot assay for detecting antibodies to T. cruzi in which four chimeric recombinant antigens (rAgs), designated FP3, FP6, FP10, and TcF, are used as target antigens. Each of these rAgs is composed of several antigenically distinct regions and includes repetitive as well as nonrepetitive sequences. Each rAg is coated as a discrete line on a nitrocellulose strip. Assay sensitivity was assessed by testing 345 specimens known to be positive for antibodies to T. cruzi. All 345 of these samples showed two to four reactive test bands in addition to the three on-board control bands that are on each strip. Assay specificity was determined by testing 500 specimens from random U.S. blood donors, all of which gave negative results. Based on the results obtained in this study, we propose the following scheme for interpretation of test results: (i) no bands or a single test band = a negative result; (ii) two or more test bands with at least one band showing intensity of 1+ or higher = a positive result; and (iii) multiple faint test bands (±) = indeterminate result. Based on this scheme, the prototype immunoblot assay showed sensitivity of 100% (n = 345) and specificity of 100% (n = 500). Additionally, all 269 potentially cross-reacting and T. cruzi antibody-negative specimens tested negative in our immunoblot assay. The rAg-based immunoblot assay has potential as a supplemental test for confirming the presence of antibodies to T. cruzi in blood specimens and for identifying false-positive results obtained with other assays.

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 25-37
Author(s):  
Waldemar Rastawicki ◽  
Klaudia Płaza ◽  
Adam Pietrusiński
Keyword(s):  
Low Cost ◽  
Lateral Flow ◽  
Serological Diagnosis ◽  
Igg Antibodies ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Lateral Flow Assays ◽  
Low Sensitivity ◽  
Positive Results

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.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Serum Cryptococcal Antigen Testing Using Two Novel Semiquantitative Lateral Flow Assays in Persons with Cryptococcal Antigenemia

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caleb Skipper ◽  
Kiiza Tadeo ◽  
Emily Martyn ◽  
Elizabeth Nalintya ◽  
Radha Rajasingham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Lateral Flow ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Cryptococcal Antigen ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Lateral Flow Assays ◽  
Positive Results

ABSTRACT Early cryptococcal disease can be detected via circulating antigen in blood before fulminant meningitis develops, when early antifungal therapy improves survival. Two semiquantitative cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) lateral flow assays (LFAs) have been developed, but their diagnostic performance has not been defined. Cryopreserved serum samples from HIV-infected Ugandans obtained as part of a prospective CrAg-screening cohort were tested in duplicate for CrAg by the CrAgSQ (IMMY) and CryptoPS (Biosynex) lateral flow assays. Case-controlled diagnostic performance was measured using the FDA-approved CrAg LFA (IMMY) as a reference standard via McNemar’s test. Of 99 serum samples tested, 57 were CrAg positive (CrAg+) by the CrAg LFA reference standard. By CrAgSQ, 57 were read as positive, with 98% sensitivity (56/57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 0.99) and 98% specificity (41/42; 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.99) (McNemar’s, P = 0.99). The sample with a false-negative result by CrAgSQ (n = 1) had a titer of <1:5, while the sample with a false-positive result (n = 1) yielded a 1+ result. By CryptoPS, 52 samples were read as positive, with 88% sensitivity (50/57; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.95) and 95% specificity (40/42; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99) (McNemar’s, P = 0.18). The CryptoPS false-negative results included samples with titers of <1:5 (n = 1), 1:5 (n = 5), and 1:20 (n = 1), while samples with false-positive results by CryptoPS (n = 2) yielded Positive results. The CryptoPS assay missed 35% (7/20) of samples with CrAg LFA titers of ≤1:20. The new semiquantitative CrAg LFAs allow rapid estimation of titer levels in easy-to-perform platforms. The CrAgSQ demonstrated better qualitative sensitivity and specificity than the CryptoPS compared to the reference standard. The exact grading of the CrAgSQ results has some subjectivity, with interreader variability; however, qualitative reads were generally concordant for both assays.

Critical Evaluation of Impedance Phlebography for the Diagnosis of Deep Vein Thrombosis

1974 ◽  
Vol 31 (02) ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Kenneth K Wu ◽  
John C Hoak ◽  
Robert W Barnes ◽  
Stuart L Frankel
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
False Positive ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Original Method ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
False Negative Results ◽  
Deep Vein ◽  
Positive Results

SummaryIn order to evaluate its daily variability and reliability, impedance phlebography was performed daily or on alternate days on 61 patients with deep vein thrombosis, of whom 47 also had 125I-fibrinogen uptake tests and 22 had radiographic venography. The results showed that impedance phlebography was highly variable and poorly reliable. False positive results were noted in 8 limbs (18%) and false negative results in 3 limbs (7%). Despite its being simple, rapid and noninvasive, its clinical usefulness is doubtful when performed according to the original method.

Low Rate of False-Positive Results with Use of A Rapid HIV Test

2002 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 335-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassandra D. Salgado ◽  
Heidi L. Flanagan ◽  
Doris M. Haverstick ◽  
Barry M. Farr
Keyword(s):  
Enzyme Immunoassay ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Diagnostic System ◽  
Rapid Test ◽  
Occupational Exposures ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Hiv Test ◽  
Rapid Hiv Test ◽  
Positive Results

Background:Occupational exposure to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is an important threat to healthcare workers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines recommend prompt institution of prophylaxis. This requires (1) immediate prophylaxis after exposure, pending test results that may take more than 24 hours in many hospitals; or (2) performance of a rapid test. The Single Use Diagnostic System (SUDS)® HIV-1 Test is used to screen rapidly for antibodies to HIV type 1 in plasma or serum, with a reported sensitivity of more than 99.9%. We used this test from January 1999 until September 2000, when it was withdrawn from the market following reports claiming a high rate of false-positive results.Methods:We reviewed the results of postexposure HIV testing during 21 months.Results:A total of 884 SUDS tests were performed on source patients after occupational exposures (883 negative results, 1 reactive result). The results of repeat SUDS testing on the reactive specimen were also reactive, but the results of enzyme immunoassay and Western blot testing were negative. A new specimen from the same patient showed a negative result on SUDS testing. This suggested a specificity of 99.9%. In the 4 months after SUDS testing was suspended, there was 1 false-positive result on enzyme immunoassay for 1 of 132 source patients (presumed specificity, 99.2%).Conclusion:Use of the SUDS test facilitated rapid and accurate evaluation of source specimens, obviating unnecessary prophylaxis.

Abstract 13456: Association of Chronic Inflammatory Diseases With Incident Atrial Fibrillation

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshihiro Tanaka ◽  
Adovich Rivera ◽  
Arjun Sinha ◽  
Ravi B Patel ◽  
Rod S Passman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Missing Values ◽  
Inflammatory Diseases ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Chronic Inflammatory Diseases ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazard Models ◽  
General Medicine Clinic

Introduction: Inflammation plays a vital role on the pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation (AF). Although it is hypothesized that chronic inflammatory diseases (CIDs) may increase the risk for incident AF, data are scarce regarding whether CIDs are associated with incidence of AF. Objectives: To determine associations of CIDs with incident AF in a large cohort comprised of patients with multiple different CIDs. Methods: Patients who visited outpatient clinic regularly due to CIDs (human immunodeficiency virus infection, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis [SSc], and systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE]) and frequency-matched controls (in regular primary care/general medicine clinic) were extracted from the Northwestern electronic health records between 1/1/2000-1/1/2019. Multiple imputation was used for imputing missing values and all following statistical analyses. Cumulative incidence of AF was estimated by the Kaplan Meier Curve, and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratio (HR) for each CID. Results: We analyzed a total number of 37,601 patients (18,847 CIDs and 19,871 controls without CIDs, median age 48.4 years, male 43%). During a median follow-up period of 3.6 years, 1076 cases (2.9%) of incident AF were observed. After adjusting for covariates included in CHARGE-AF risk score, baseline year, insurance type, baseline hypertension, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, both SSc (HR, 2.29: 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72 - 3.06; p < 0.01) and SLE (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.65 - 2.90; p < 0.01) were associated with a significantly elevated incidence of AF (Table). Conclusions: Patients with SSc or SLE had a significantly elevated incidence of AF after multivariable adjustment. Future studies should investigate mechanisms underlying these findings to generate both disease-specific knowledge and more generalizable knowledge regarding inflammatory contributors to AF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document