scholarly journals Evaluating Ten Commercially-Available SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Serological Tests Using the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) Method.

Author(s):  
Laurent Dortet ◽  
Jean-Baptiste Ronat ◽  
Christelle Vauloup-Fellous ◽  
Céline Langendorf ◽  
David-Alexis Mendels ◽  
...  

Numerous SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests have been developed, but their accuracy has usually been assessed using very few samples, and rigorous comparisons between these tests are scarce. In this study, we evaluated and compared 10 commercially-available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests using the STARD methodology (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies). 250 sera from 159 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected from 0 to 32 days after onset of symptoms) were tested with rapid serological tests. Control sera (N = 254) were retrieved from pre-COVID periods from patients with other coronavirus infections (N = 11), positive rheumatoid factors (N = 3), IgG/IgM hyperglobulinemia (N = 9), malaria (n = 5), or no documented viral infection (N = 226). All samples were tested using rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) from 10 manufacturers. Only four tests achieved ≥98% specificity, with other tests ranging from 75.7%-99.2%. Sensitivities varied by the day of sample collection, from 31.7%-55.4% (Days 0-9), 65.9%-92.9% (Days 10-14), and 81.0%-95.2% (>14 days) after the onset of symptoms, respectively. Only three tests evaluated met French Health Authorities’ thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 serological tests (≥90% sensitivity + ≥98% specificity). Overall, the performances between tests varied greatly, with only a third meeting acceptable specificity and sensitivity thresholds. Knowing the analytical performance of these tests will allow clinicians and most importantly laboratorians to use them with more confidence, could help determine the general population’s immunological status, and may help to diagnose some patients with false-negative RT-PCR results.

Author(s):  
Laurent Dortet ◽  
Jean-Baptiste Ronat ◽  
Christelle Vauloup-Fellous ◽  
Céline Langendorf ◽  
David-Alexis Mendels ◽  
...  

Numerous SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests have been developed, but their accuracy has usually been assessed using very few samples, and rigorous comparisons between these tests are scarce. In this study, we evaluated and compared 10 commercially-available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests using the STARD methodology (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies). 250 sera from 159 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected from 0 to 32 days after onset of symptoms) were tested with rapid serological tests. Control sera (N=254) were retrieved from pre-COVID periods from patients with other coronavirus infections (N=11), positive rheumatoid factors (N=3), IgG/IgM hyperglobulinemia (N=9), malaria (n=5), or no documented viral infection (N=226). All samples were tested using rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) from ten manufacturers. Only four tests achieved ≥98% specificity, with other tests ranging from 75.7%-99.2%. Sensitivities varied by the day of sample collection, from 31.7%-55.4% (Days 0-9), 65.9%-92.9% (Days 10-14), and 81.0%-95.2% (>14 days) after the onset of symptoms, respectively. Only three tests evaluated met French Health Authorities' thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 serological tests (≥90% sensitivity + ≥98% specificity). Overall, the performances between tests varied greatly, with only a third meeting acceptable specificity and sensitivity thresholds. Knowing the analytical performance of these tests will allow clinicians to use them with more confidence, could help determine the general population's immunological status, and may diagnose some patients with false-negative RT-PCR results.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. 3356-3358
Author(s):  
Ambreen Fatima ◽  
Nidda Yaseen ◽  
Amna Fareed ◽  
Kashif Ali Samin ◽  
Shumaela Kanwal ◽  
...  

Background and Aim: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid emergence postured significant challenges on the health system in recent years. The early detection of cases is thought to be critical in preventing this pandemic by coronavirus disease (COVID-19), especially important in the obstetrical population due to theirs numerous interactions with another parturient when hospitalized for delivery. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the COVID antigen test performance in COVID-positive obstetrics patients. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 1296 Covid-19 asymptomatic women admitted to the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department of Muhammad Teaching Hospital & Medical College, Peshawar and Fauji Foundation Hospital, Rawalpindi for the duration of six months from February 2021 to July 2021. Antigen-based test rapid diagnostic test (RDT) was used for screening out COVID-19 positive obstetrics patients or women through nasopharyngeal swabs. Women with negative rapid antigen test results were confirmed with RT-polymers chain reaction test of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). Ethical approval and informed consent were taken from the hospital ethical committee and each individual respectively. All the known positive COVID-19 patients during admission were excluded. SPSS version 24 was used for data analysis. Results: The overall prevalence of rapid antigen-positive tested patients was 13.2% (171/1296). The prevalence of positive tested women through rapid antigen test, Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT), and RT-PCR were 27 (2.1%), 51 (3.9%), and 93 (7.2%) respectively. Of the total 1296 rapid antigen tests, 27 were positive, and the false-negative confirmed positive by NAAT was 144.Thus the sensitivity of the rapid antigen test was 15.8% and the negative predictive value was 93.7%. Of the total 298 Nucleic Acid Amplification Tested had sensitivity and negative predictive value of 89.6% and 99.06% respectively. RT-PCR was carried out on 972 patients, positive diagnosed cases were 36 while 15 were initially negative and were positive with the test was repeated. The sensitivity and negative predictive value was 71.45% and 95.8% respectively. Conclusion: Our study found that Ag-RDT plays a significant role in SARS-CoV-2 early detection in infected individuals, with high specificity and sensitivity to disease infectious stage, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, and can be used as a decision supported tool. Early detection of COVID-19 status in women admitted for delivery could benefit neonatal protection care. Keywords: Covid-19; Rapid antigen test; RT-PCR test


2008 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 424-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung-ah Kwon ◽  
Hyeseon Lee ◽  
Kap N o Lee ◽  
Kwangchun Chae ◽  
Seram Lee ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be transmitted through blood transfusion. Screening ELISA, the most widely used method for HCV diagnosis, sometimes yields false-positive and false-negative results, so a confirmatory test is used. This secondary testing is labor-intensive and expensive, and thus is impractical for massive blood bank screening. Therefore, a new massive screening method with high accuracy is needed for sensitive and specific detection of HCV. Methods: With sol-gel material, we designed novel antigen microarray in 96-well plates for HCV detection. Each individual well was spotted with 4 different HCV antigens. We used this new system to test 154 patient serum samples previously tested for HCV by ELISA (87 HCV positive and 67 HCV negative) (HCV EIA3.0, ABBOTT). We assessed the detection limit of our microarray system with the use of serial 10-fold dilutions of an HCV-positive sample. Results: Our microarray assay was reproducible and displayed higher diagnostic accuracy (specificity) (98.78%) than did the ELISA (81.71%). Our method yielded significantly fewer false-positive results than did the ELISA. The detection limit of our assay was 1000 times more sensitive than that of the ELISA. In addition, we found this novel assay technology to be compatible with the currently employed automated methods used for ELISA. Conclusion: We successfully applied the sol-gel–based protein microarray technology to a screening assay for HCV diagnosis with confirmatory test-level accuracy. This new, inexpensive method will improve the specificity and sensitivity of massive sample diagnosis.


Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 1441
Author(s):  
Suelen Basgalupp ◽  
Giovana dos Santos ◽  
Marina Bessel ◽  
Lara Garcia ◽  
Ana Carolina de Moura ◽  
...  

Serological assays emerged as complementary tools to RT-PCR in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 as well as being needed for epidemiological studies. This study aimed to assess the performance of a rapid test (RT) compared to that of serological tests using finger prick blood samples. A total of 183 samples were evaluated, 88 of which were collected from individuals with negative RT-PCR and 95 from positive RT-PCR individuals. The diagnostic performance of RT (WONDFO®) and LUMIT (PROMEGA®) were compared to that of ELISA (EUROIMMUN®) for detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 according to time from symptoms onset. The IgG antibody tests were detected in 77.4% (LUMIT), 77.9% (RT), and 80.0% (ELISA) of individuals. The detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 increases in accordance with increasing time from symptoms onset. Considering only time from symptoms onset >21 days, the positivity rate ranged from 81.8 to 97.0% between the three tests. The RT and LUMIT showed high agreement with ELISA (agreement = 91.5%, k = 0.83, and agreement = 96.3%, k = 0.9, respectively) in individuals who had symptoms 15 to 21 days before sample collection. Compared to that of the ELISA assay, our results show sensitivity ranged from 95% to 100% for IgG antibody detection in individuals with symptoms onset between 15 and 21 days before sample collection. The specificity was 100% in individuals with symptoms onset >15 days before serological tests. This study shows good performance and high level of agreement of three immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.


Author(s):  
Rania A. Zayed ◽  
Dalia Omran ◽  
Abeer A. Zayed

Abstract Background COVID-19 was identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, and rapidly spread worldwide, being declared global pandemic on the 11th of March 2020. Since its emergence, COVID-19 has raised global concerns associated with drastic measures that were never adopted in any previous outbreak, to contain the situation as early as possible. Main body The 2019 novel corona virus (2019-nCoV) or SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of COVID-19. 2019-nCoV genetic sequence was rapidly identified within few days since the first reported cases and RT-PCR kits became available for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, RT-PCR diagnosis carries a risk of false-negative results; therefore, additional serologic tests are needed. In this review, we summarize the clinical scenario that raises suspicion of COVID-19 and available laboratory diagnostics. Conclusion The most important approach in the battle against COVID-19 is rapid diagnosis of suspicious cases, timely therapeutic intervention and isolation to avoid community spread. Diagnosis depends mainly on PCR testing and serological tests. However, even in the context of negative lab test results and clinical suspicion of COVID-19 infection, clinical decision should be based on clinical suspicion.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 283-301
Author(s):  
Carmel Reina R. Chua ◽  
Esther Delle E. De los Santos ◽  
Karla Veronica H. Escasa ◽  
Richmond Louis G. Estolas ◽  
Junnealyn Feliciano ◽  
...  

Introduction: Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) is a highly infectious disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which has infected many people all over the world. One of the best ways to lessen its spread is through early detection and diagnosis. Various serological tests are now being used as a surveillance tool in the detection of antibodies as a response to SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and performance of the available COVID-19 antibody tests authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Philippines that make use of Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA) and Lateral Flow Immunoassay (LFIA). Method: Complete published journal articles relevant to the diagnostic accuracy of the three antibody tests were collected using trusted medical journal search engines. The quality of journals was assessed using QUADAS-2 to determine the risk of bias and assess the applicability judgments of diagnostic accuracy studies. Forest plots were used to summarize the performance of LFIA, ELISA and CLIA according to their specificity and sensitivity in detecting various antibodies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were also done using bivariate random-effects models with its log-likelihood, a corresponding chi-square test statistic, and area under the summary Receiver-Operating Characteristic curve to see the potential heterogeneity in the data and to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the COVID-19 antibody tests. Results: Bivariate random-effects model and areas under the sROC curve were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 antibody tests. The pooled sensitivity in detecting IgG based on CLIA, ELISA, and LFIA were 81.7%, 58.7%, and 74.3% respectively, with an overall of 72.0%. For IgM detection, LFIA has a higher pooled sensitivity of 69.6% than CLIA with 61.0%. Overall, the pooled sensitivity is 68.5%. In IgA detection, only ELISA based test was included with a pooled sensitivity of 84.8%. Lastly, pooled sensitivities for combined antibodies based on ELISA and LFIA were 89.0% and 81.6% respectively, with an overall of 82.5%. On the other hand, all tests excluding ELISA-IgA displayed high pooled specificities with a range of 94.0% to 100.0%. Diagnostic accuracies of the test in detecting IgG, IgM, and combined antibodies were found out to be almost perfect based on the computed area under the sROC with values of 0.973, 0.953, and 0.966, respectively. Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, existing evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests for COVID-19 were found to be characterized by high risks of bias, consistency in the heterogeneity of sensitivities, and consistency in the homogeneity of high specificities except in IgA detection using ELISA. The bivariate random-effects models showed that there are no significant differences in terms of sensitivity among CLIA, ELISA and LFIA in detecting IgG, IgM, and combined antibodies at a 95% confidence interval. Nonetheless, CLIA, ELISA and LFIA were found to have excellent diagnostic accuracies in the detection of IgG, IgM and combined antibodies as reflected by their AUC values. Doi: 10.28991/SciMedJ-2021-0304-1 Full Text: PDF


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Vengesai ◽  
Herald Midzi ◽  
Maritha Kasambala ◽  
Hamlet Mutandadzi ◽  
Tariro L. Mduluza-Jok ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Serological testing based on different antibody types are an alternative method being used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 and has the potential of having higher diagnostic accuracy compared to the current gold standard RT-PCR. Therefore, the objective of this review was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of IgG and IgM based Point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA), chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (CLIA), fluorescence enzyme-linked immunoassay (FIA) and ELISA systems that detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens.Method: A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, Medline complete and MedRxiv. Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 were eligible. Study selection and data-extraction were done by two authors independently. QUADAS-2 checklist tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. The bivariate model and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve model were performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the serological tests. Subgroup meta-analysis analyses was performed to explore the heterogeneity. Results: The pooled sensitivity for IgG, IgM and IgG-IgM based LFIA tests were 0.5856, 0.4637 and 0.6886 respectively compared to RT-PCR method. The pooled sensitivity for IgG and IgM based CLIA tests were 0.9311 and 0.8516 respectively compared to RT-PCR. The pooled sensitivity the IgG, IgM and IgG-IgM based ELISA tests were 0.8292, 0.8388 and 0.8531 respectively compared to RT-PCR. All tests displayed high specificities ranging from 0.9693 to 0.9991. Among the evaluated tests, IgG based CLIA expressed the highest sensitivity signifying its accurate detection of the largest proportion of infections identified by RT-PCR. ELISA and CLIA tests performed better in terms of sensitivity compared to LFIA. IgG based tests performed better compared to IgM ones expect for the ELISA. Conclusions: We report that IgG-IgM based ELISA tests have the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. Moreover, irrespective of the method, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody type independently. Given the poor performances of the current LFIA devices there is need for more research on the development of highly sensitivity and specific POC LFIA that are adequate for most individual patient applications and attractive for large sero-prevalence studies.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO Registration Number is: CRD42020179112


Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (17) ◽  
pp. 5710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Maniscalco ◽  
Pasquale Ambrosino ◽  
Anna Ciullo ◽  
Salvatore Fuschillo ◽  
Valerio Valente ◽  
...  

Background: The standard test that identifies the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is based on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal (NP) swab specimens. We compared the accuracy of a rapid antigen detection test using exhaled breath condensate by a modified Inflammacheck® device with the standard RT-PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We performed a manufacturer-independent, cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study involving two Italian hospitals. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of Inflammacheck® were calculated using the RT-PCR results as the standard. Further RT-PCR tests were conducted on NP specimens from test positive subjects to obtain the Ct (cycle threshold) values as indicative evidence of the viral load. Results: A total of 105 individuals (41 females, 39.0%; 64 males, 61.0%; mean age: 58.4 years) were included in the final analysis, with the RT-PCR being positive in 13 (12.4%) and negative in 92 (87.6%). The agreement between the two methods was 98.1%, with a Cohen’s κ score of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.79–1.00). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Inflammacheck® were 92.3% (95% CI: 64.0%–99.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI: 94.1%–100%), respectively, with a PLR of 84.9 (95% CI: 12.0–600.3) and a NLR of 0.08 (95% CI: 0.01–0.51). Considering a 12.4% disease prevalence in the study cohort, the PPV was 92.3% (95% CI: 62.9%–98.8%) and the NPV was 98.9% (95% CI: 93.3%–99.8%), with an overall accuracy of 98.1% (95% CI: 93.3%–99.8%). The Fagan’s nomogram substantially confirmed the clinical applicability of the test in a realistic scenario with a pre-test probability set at 4%. Ct values obtained for the positive test subjects by means of the RT-PCR were normally distributed between 26 and 38 cycles, corresponding to viral loads from light (38 cycles) to high (26 cycles). The single false negative record had a Ct value of 33, which was close to the mean of the cohort (32.5 cycles). Conclusions: The modified Inflammacheck® device may be a rapid, non-demanding and cost-effective method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This device may be used for routine practice in different healthcare settings (community, hospital, rehabilitation).


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
Maria do Rosario Ferraz Roberti ◽  
Tiago Paiva Prudente ◽  
Renato Gomes Castro ◽  
Marcos Antonio Candido ◽  
Roberta Luiza Rodrigues ◽  
...  

In March 2020, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the WHO. Since then, efforts have been made to increase our knowledge of the disease. The convalescent plasma (CP) donation involves a series of criteria for donor eligibility, such as pre-donation and serological tests. Currently, the antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 remains poorly understood and the usefulness of serological tests is unclear (Long, et al. Nature Medicine, 2020). Based on donor eligibility, one can better assess the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 from post-infection candidates. This is an observational, prospective study, without intervention. From 06/26/2020 to 07/31/2020, serological data of candidates for CP donation were collected. Recovered COVID-19 patients who had been previously tested were interviewed. RT-PCR and serological test (chemiluminescence immunoassays) for SARS-CoV-2 were carried out to verify their eligibility for CP collection. The data were related to the time of the onset of symptoms and the collection of the material. Subjects with non-detectable RT-PCR and reagent IgG were considered eligible. Reference values were IgM > 1.2 AU/mL and IgG > 1.4 AU/mL. The characteristics of the candidates are summarized in Table 1. Of 234 interviewed subjects, 70 were screened for pre-collection tests, 49 were male. The average age was 36 (20 - 57). After serological screening, 44/70 (62.8%) were considered eligible for CP donation. The reasons for ineligibility were: 17/70 (24.3%) non-reagent IgG, 4/70 (5.7%) with detectable RT-PCR and 5/70 (7.1%) due to reasons in clinical screening. The median between the onset of symptoms and the serology sample collection was 32.5 (21 - 77) days, (IQR 28.75 to 37.25). Those who were more likely to be eligible to donate were the subjects who had a longer time interval between the symptoms onset and the sample collection (p <0.012). Although viral clearance in the upper airways is expected from the 10th day of symptom onset, only 50% of patients will have an undetectable test (Özçürümez, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020). In our sample, 5.7% (4/70) of the subjects had detectable RT-PCR, which can represent residual viral genome and not active infection. We observed that 20% of the subjects samples were non-reagent. Those who were tested up to the 21st of the onset of symptoms might not have had seroconversion yet. For those tested after the 28th day, we can infer that the antibodies had already been cleared. Some authors state that patients who had mild infections may react with less antibodies (Özçürümez, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020), which could explain this fact. Likewise, it was not possible to relate serological titers to the severity of the disease, as this was not one of the selection criteria.In 40/70 donors (57.2%) IgM remained above 1.2 AU / mL after the 21st day of symptom onset. Interestingly, 2 of these had only reagent IgM after the 36th day of symptom onset. Most subjects who had reagent IgM after the 21st of symptoms also had reagent IgG. We inferred that they were in a vigorous convalescence phase. In addition, 75.7% of the subjects presented reagent IgG regardless of the date of onset of symptoms. Most of them had both reagent IgM and IgG. Only one donor's (1.4%) IgM and IgG were non-reagent 21 days after the onset of symptoms. As we did not collect serial samples, we could not verify the average amount of days for seroconversion to take place. Some authors recommend that the single collection should occur at least 21 days after the onset of symptoms, so seroconversion is observed (Deeks, et al., Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020). In our sample, 4 donors (5%) collected the samples on the 21st day after the symptom onset. Of these, 3 had seroconversion, 2 with IgM and IgG, 1 with IgG and 1 with reagent IgM. The values suggest that the subjects who could donate CP were those that presented a longer time interval between the onset of symptoms and the blood sample collection, in comparison to those who could not (p=0,012 and 0,409, respectively). The median of days between symptom onset and serology testing was also higher in the non-eligible group. Besides, the eligible group had a higher average concentration of IgM and IgG compared to the non-eligible one. In conclusion, regarding the serological criteria, about 25% of the studied population could not donate CP. Although a single serology sample collection after the 21st day of symptom onset is recommended, only 1 candidate did not show seroconversion. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2021 ◽  
pp. 60-62
Author(s):  
Tagajdid Mohamed Rida ◽  
Konzi Clémence ◽  
El Kochri Safae ◽  
Elannaz Hicham ◽  
Abi Rachid ◽  
...  

Introduction: Currently, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based viral RNAdetection is the standard for COVID-19 diagnosis [2]. Though, RNA testing based on throat or nasopharyngeal swabs has shown a number of false-negative results. Antibody detection tests have been developed to detect specic antibodies, IgM and IgG, to SRAS-CoV-2 virus. The clinical relevance of these tests is still under evaluation and is highly related to their clinical performance. Our objective is to assess analytical performances of nine SARS-CoV-2 antibodies immunoassays. Materiel and Method: We collected 80 blood samples from PCR-conrmed COVID-19 patients diagnosed in our Virology department (20 samples collected at day 10 after the onset of symptoms, 60 collected after day 14 following the onset of symptoms) and 20 blood samples from patients SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative. All sera were tested with nine SARS-CoV-2 antibodies immunoassays ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG® (Abbott), COVID-19 VIRCLIA® IgG MONOTEST (Vircell), COVID-19 VIRCLIA® IgM+IgA MONOTEST (Vircell), COVID-19 ELISA IgG® (Vircell), COVID-19 ELISA IgM+IgA® (Vircell), Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche), FREND® COVID-19 IgG/IgM Duo (NanoEntek), COVID-PRESTO® (AAZ) and COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) IgM/IgG Antibody Test Kit® (Labnovation Technologies). Results: Sensitivity of tests increases once the seroconversion to anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive in most individuals occurs toward the end of week 2 post-infection. COVID-19 PRESTO had the best accuracy in our study showing 100% sensitivity after day 14 following the onset of symptoms. All of the tests had a specicity of 100%. Conclusion: Serological tests are sensitive for the latest stages of COVID-19 infection. Recommendations on using SRAS-COV-2 antibody detection tests are continuously improving based on current knowledge of host antibody responses during infection. They are of great value in cases presenting COVID-19 symptoms with negative RT-PCR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document