Diagnostic characteristics of serological tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 cases

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 210-212
Author(s):  
O. V. Petrova ◽  
D. K. Tverdokhlebova ◽  
O. I. Murygina ◽  
E. V. Smeltsova ◽  
D. M. Nikulina

To study the diagnostic characteristics of test systems for detecting antibodies to SARS-Cov-2. We studied the diagnostic characteristics of two test systems for detecting antibodies to SARS-Cov-2, registered in the Russian Federation. The first test system is a kit for detecting total antibodies to SARS-Cov-2 using immunochemiluminescence analysis on the «Cobas e 411» analyzer («Roche Diagnostics», Germany). The second test system is a kit for detecting IgM and IgG to SARS-Cov-2 («Core Technology Co., Ltd», China) by immunochromatographic analysis. The biological material for the study was blood serum. We assessed: diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, and predictive value of positive and negative results. In the test system for detecting total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, using an IHLA, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 100%; the predictive value of positive and negative results was 100%. In the test system for the detection of IgM and IgG to Sars-CoV-2, using IHA, diagnostic sensitivity for IgM and IgG were 100%; diagnostic specificity for IgM - 60%, for IgG - 72%; predictive value of a positive result for IgM - 60%, IgG - 68,18%; predictive value of negative results for IgM and IgG - 100%. The best diagnostic characteristics were found in the test system for the detection of total antibodies to SARS-Cov-2, which must be taken into account when deciding whether to purchase test systems for the detection of antibodies to SARS-Cov-2.

Author(s):  
A. G. Konopliannikov ◽  
A. N. Toropovskii ◽  
D. A. Viktorov ◽  
Yu. V. Myakisheva ◽  
R. F. Burganova ◽  
...  

Introduction. The article discusses the problem of timely diagnosis and prevention of Rh-immunity of pregnant women and hemolytic disease of the fetus, which remains relevant today, despite the existence of proven methods of diagnosis, treatment and prevention.Aim: to assess the medico-economic efficiency of non-invasive prenatal diagnostics of the Rh factor (rhesus D antigen, RhD) of the fetus in the mother's blood – RhD-genotyping of the fetus.Materials and Methods. In a retrospective observational study, the results were analyzed of determining the Rh-factor of the fetus in the blood of 4109 Rh-negative pregnant women observed in 41 medical organizations of the Ulyanovsk region in the period 2018–2020. At a gestational age of ≥ 10 weeks, the RhD state of the fetus was determined by polymerase chain reaction. To assess the medical effectiveness of the test, the sensitivity, specificity, predictive value of positive and negative results, and diagnostic accuracy were determined. The data collected during the study were compared with the information obtained after childbirth. To assess the economic efficiency, the difference between the cost of immunization and the cost of determining the D antigen of the Rhesus system (Rh factor) of the fetus was determined.Results. A positive Rh-factor of the fetus was detected in 67.26 % of cases (n = 2793), negative – in 32.74 % (n = 1316). Diagnostic accuracy of the test system "Test-RhD" was 99.40 %, the sensitivity – 99.84 %, the specificity – 97.51 %, the prognostic value of a positive result – 99.43 %, the predictive value of a negative result – 99.28 % with low rates of false positive and false negative results. It has been shown that this study avoids unnecessary immunization costs for all Rh-negative pregnant women.Conclusion. Analysis of the diagnostic characteristics and cost-effectiveness of the RhD test indicate the high medical significance of the method and make it possible to recommend its wider use.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Piec ◽  
Emma English ◽  
M Annette Thomas ◽  
Samir Dervisevic ◽  
William D Fraser ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundIn the emergency of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, great efforts were made to quickly provide serology testing to the medical community however, these methods have been introduced into clinical practice without the complete validation usually required by the regulatory organizations.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 patient samples (n=43) were analysed alongside pre-pandemic control specimen (n=50), confirmed respiratory infections (n=50), inflammatory polyarthritis (n=22) and positive for thyroid stimulating immunoglobulin (n=30). Imprecision, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity and concordance were evaluated on IgG serologic assays from EuroImmun, Epitope Diagnostics (EDI), Abbott Diagnostics and DiaSorin and a rapid IgG/IgM test from Healgen.ResultsEDI and EuroImmun imprecision was 0.02-14.0% CV. Abbott and DiaSorin imprecision (CV) ranged from 5.2% - 8.1% and 8.2% - 9.6% respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity of the assays were 100% (CI: 80-100%) for Abbott, EDI and EuroImmun and 95% (CI: 73-100%) for DiaSorin at ≥14 days post PCR. Only the Abbott assay had a diagnostic specificity of 100% (CI: 91-100%). EuroImmun cross-reacted in 3 non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections and 2 controls. The DiaSorin displayed more false negative results and cross-reacted in six cases across all conditions tested. EDI had one cross-reactive sample. The Healgen rapid test showed excellent sensitivity and specificity. Overall, concordance of the assays ranged from 76.1% to 97.9%.ConclusionsSerological tests for SARS-CoV-2 showed good analytical performance. The head-to-head analysis of samples revealed differences in results that may be linked to the use of nucleocapsid or spike proteins. The point of care device tested demonstrated adequate performance for antibody detection.


2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 7-8
Author(s):  
Miriam S Martin ◽  
Michael Kleinhenz ◽  
Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein ◽  
Johann Coetzee

Abstract Biomarkers are commonly used to assess pain and analgesic drug efficacy in livestock. However, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of these biomarkers for different pain conditions over time have not been described. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves are graphical plots that illustrate the diagnostic ability of a test as its discrimination threshold is varied. The objective of this analysis was to use area under the curve (AUC) values derived from ROC analysis to assess the predictive value of pain biomarkers at specific timepoints. The biomarkers included in the analysis were blood cortisol, salivary cortisol, hair cortisol, infrared thermography (IRT), mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT), substance P, and outcomes from a pressure/force measurement system and visual analog scale. A total sample size of 7,992 biomarker outcomes were collected from 6 pain studies involving pain associated with castration, dehorning, lameness, and surgery were included in the analysis. Each study consisted of three treatments; pain, no pain, and analgesia. All statistics were performed using statistical software (JMP Pro 14.0, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Results comparing analgesia verses pain yielded good diagnostic accuracy (AUC > 0.7; 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.99) for blood cortisol (timepoints 1.5, 2, and 6 hours); IRT (timepoints 6, 8, 12, and 72 hours); and MNT (timepoints 6, 25, and 49 hours). These results indicate that ROC analysis can be a useful indicator of the predictive value of pain biomarkers and certain timepoints seem to yield good diagnostic accuracy while many do not.


2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (8) ◽  
pp. 1055-1062 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei San Tang ◽  
Karl G Hock ◽  
Nicole M Logsdon ◽  
Jennifer E Hayes ◽  
Ann M Gronowski ◽  
...  

Abstract Background 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. Methods 103 specimens from 48 patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 153 control specimens were analyzed using SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays by Abbott and EUROIMMUN (EI). Duration from symptom onset was determined by medical record review. Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and concordance were calculated. Results The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 assay had a diagnostic specificity of 99.4% (95% CI; 96.41–99.98%), and sensitivity of 0.0% (95% CI; 0.00–26.47%) at <3 days post symptom onset, 30.0% (95% CI; 11.89–54.28) at 3–7d, 47.8% (95% CI; 26.82–69.41) at 8–13d and 93.8% (95% CI; 82.80–98.69) at ≥14d. Diagnostic specificity on the EI assay was 94.8% (95% CI; 89.96–97.72) if borderline results were considered positive and 96.7% (95% CI; 92.54–98.93) if borderline results were considered negative. The diagnostic sensitivity was 0.0% (95% CI; 0.00–26.47%) at <3d, 25.0% (95% CI; 8.66–49.10) at 3–7d, 56.5% (95% CI; 34.49–76.81) at 3–7d and 85.4% (95% CI; 72.24–93.93) at ≥14d if borderline results were considered positive. The qualitative concordance between the assays was 0.83 (95% CI; 0.75–0.91). Conclusion 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.


Neurosurgery ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 995-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dachling Pang ◽  
William R. Nemzek ◽  
John Zovickian

Abstract OBJECTIVE The diagnosis of atlanto-occipital dislocation (AOD) remains problematic as a result of a lack of reliable radiodiagnostic criteria. In Part 1 of the AOD series, we showed that the normal occiput–C1 joint in children has an extremely narrow joint gap (condyle–C1 interval [CCI]) with great left-right symmetry. In Part 2, we used a CCI of 4 mm or greater measured on reformatted computed tomographic (CT) scans as the indicator for AOD and tested the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CCI against published criteria. The clinical manifestation, neuroimaging findings, management, and outcome of our series of patients with AOD are also reported. METHOD For diagnostic sensitivity, we applied the CCI criterion on 16 patients who fulfilled one or more accepted radiodiagnostic criteria of AOD and who showed clinical and imaging hallmarks of the syndrome. All 16 patients had plain cervical spine x-rays, head CT scans, axial cervical spine CT scans with reconstruction, and magnetic resonance imaging scans. The diagnostic yield and false-negative rate of CCI were compared with those of four published “standard” tests, namely Wholey's dens-basion interval, Powers' ratio, Harris' basion-axis interval, and Sun's interspinous ratio. The diagnostic value of “nonstandard” indicators such as cervicomedullary deficits, tectorial membrane and other ligamentous damage, perimedullary subarachnoid hemorrhage, and extra-axial blood at C1−C2 were also assessed. For diagnostic specificity, we applied CCI and the “standard” and “nonstandard” tests on 10 patients from five classes of non-AOD upper cervical injuries. The false-positive diagnostic rates for AOD of all respective tests were documented. RESULTS The CCI criterion was positive in all 16 patients with AOD with a diagnostic sensitivity of 100%. Fourteen patients had bilateral AOD with disruption and widening of both OC1 joints. Two patients had unilateral AOD with only one joint wider than 4 mm. The abnormal CCI varied from 5 to 34 mm. Eight patients showed blatant left-right joint asymmetry in either CCI or anatomic conformation. The diagnostic sensitivities for the “standard” tests are as follows: Wholey's, 50%; Powers', 37.5%; Harris', 31%; and Sun's, 25%, with false-negative rates of 50, 62.5, 69, and 75%, respectively. The sensitivities for the “nonstandard” indicators are: tectorial membrane damage, 71%; perimedullary blood, 63%; and C1−C2 extra-axial blood, 75%, with false-negative rates of 29, 37, and 25%, respectively. Fifteen patients with AOD had occiput-cervical fusion. There were one early and two delayed deaths (19% mortality); two patients (12%) had complete or severe residual high quadriplegia, but 11 children (69%) enjoyed excellent neurological recovery. CCI was normal in all 10 patients with non-AOD upper cervical injuries with a diagnostic specificity of 100%. The false-positive rates for the four “standard” tests were: Sun's, 60%; Harris', 50%; Wholey's, 30%; and Powers', 10%; for the “nonstandard” indicator, the rates were: cervicomedullary deficits, 70%; tectorial membrane damage, 40%; C1−C2 extra-axial blood, 40%; and perimedullary blood, 30%. CONCLUSION The CCI criterion has the highest diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for AOD among all other radiodiagnostic criteria and indicators. CCI is easily computed from reconstructed CT scans, has almost no logistical or technical distortions, can capture occiput–C1 joint dislocation in all three planes, and is unaffected by congenital anomalies or maturation changes of adjacent structures. Because CCI is the only test that directly measures the integrity of the actual joint injured in AOD and a widened CCI cannot be concealed by postinjury changes in the head and neck relationship, it surpasses others that use changeable landmarks.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Irsara ◽  
Alexander E. Egger ◽  
Wolfgang Prokop ◽  
Manfred Nairz ◽  
Lorin Loacker ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectivesSerological tests detect antibodies against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the ongoing coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Independent external clinical validation of performance characteristics is of paramount importance.MethodsFour fully automated assays, Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total (COV2T) and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (COV2G) were evaluated using 350 pre-pandemic samples and 700 samples from 245 COVID-19 patients (158 hospitalized, 87 outpatients).ResultsAll tests showed very high diagnostic specificity. Sensitivities in samples collected at least 14 days after disease onset were slightly lower than manufacturers’ claims for Roche (93.04%), Abbott (90.83%), and Siemens COV2T (90.26%), and distinctly lower for Siemens COV2G (78.76%). Concordantly negative results were enriched for immunocompromised patients. ROC curve analyses suggest a lowering of the cut-off index for the Siemens COV2G assay. Finally, the combination of two anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays is feasible when considering borderline reactive results.ConclusionsThorough on-site evaluation of commercially available serologic tests for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 remains imperative for laboratories. The potentially impaired sensitivity of the Siemens COV2G necessitates a switch to the company’s newly filed SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (sCOVG) for follow-up studies. A combination of tests could be considered in clinical practice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (7) ◽  
pp. 439-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. V. Nikitina ◽  
S. G. Mardanly ◽  
V. V. Pomazanov

The evaluating results of the diagnostic characteristics of an immunochromatographic test for the detection of fecal occult blood (hemoglobin) were presents in the article. The test was approved samples without hemoglobin and model samples containing of standardized preparation of hemoglobin in various concentrations in comparison with two immunochromatographic test systems. The developed test system identified hemoglobin in concentrations higher 50 ng/ml in 99,2% cases, the specificity of the analysis was 98,1%. The obtained levels of sensitivity and specificity were higher the similar parameters for the compared test systems. The immunochromatographic FOB-test can be used for rapid analysis in the primary screening of colorectal cancer.


Author(s):  
Christian Irsara ◽  
Alexander E. Egger ◽  
Wolfgang Prokop ◽  
Manfred Nairz ◽  
Lorin Loacker ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives Serological tests detect antibodies against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the ongoing coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Independent external clinical validation of performance characteristics is of paramount importance. Methods Four fully automated assays, Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total (COV2T) and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (COV2G) were evaluated using 350 pre-pandemic samples and 700 samples from 245 COVID-19 patients (158 hospitalized, 87 outpatients). Results All tests showed very high diagnostic specificity. Sensitivities in samples collected at least 14 days after disease onset were slightly lower than manufacturers’ claims for Roche (93.0%), Abbott (90.8%), and Siemens COV2T (90.3%), and distinctly lower for Siemens COV2G (78.8%). Concordantly negative results were enriched for immunocompromised patients. ROC curve analyses suggest a lowering of the cut-off index for the Siemens COV2G assay. Finally, the combination of two anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays is feasible when considering borderline reactive results. Conclusions Thorough on-site evaluation of commercially available serologic tests for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 remains imperative for laboratories. The potentially impaired sensitivity of the Siemens COV2G necessitates a switch to the company’s newly filed SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay for follow-up studies. A combination of tests could be considered in clinical practice.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0245914
Author(s):  
Isabelle Piec ◽  
Emma English ◽  
Mary Annette Thomas ◽  
Samir Dervisevic ◽  
William D. Fraser ◽  
...  

In the emergency of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, great efforts were made to quickly provide serology testing to the medical community however, these methods have been introduced into clinical practice without the complete validation usually required by the regulatory organizations. SARS-CoV-2 patient samples (n = 43) were analyzed alongside pre-pandemic control specimen (n = 50), confirmed respiratory infections (n = 50), inflammatory polyarthritis (n = 22) and positive for thyroid stimulating immunoglobulin (n = 30). Imprecision, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity and concordance were evaluated on IgG serologic assays from EuroImmun, Epitope Diagnostics (EDI), Abbott Diagnostics and DiaSorin and a rapid IgG/IgM test from Healgen. EDI and EuroImmun imprecision was 0.02–14.0% CV. Abbott and DiaSorin imprecision (CV) ranged from 5.2%–8.1% and 8.2%–9.6% respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity of the assays was 100% (CI: 80–100%) for Abbott, EDI and EuroImmun and 95% (CI: 73–100%) for DiaSorin at ≥14 days post PCR. Only the Abbott assay had a diagnostic specificity of 100% (CI: 91–100%). EuroImmun cross-reacted in 3 non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections and 2 controls. The DiaSorin displayed more false negative results and cross-reacted in six cases across all conditions tested. EDI had one cross-reactive sample. The Healgen rapid test showed excellent sensitivity and specificity. Overall, concordance of the assays ranged from 76.1% to 97.9%. Serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 showed good analytical performance. The head-to-head analysis of samples revealed differences in results that may be linked to the use of nucleocapsid or spike proteins. The point of care device tested demonstrated adequate performance for antibody detection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document