Back

Concordance of "rapid" serological tests and IgG and IgM chemiluminescence for SARS-COV-2

Saenz-Flor, K. V.; Santafe, L. M.

2020-06-03 pathology
10.1101/2020.06.01.20114884 medRxiv
Show abstract

AbstarctO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSThe COVID-19 serological tests for IgG and IgM have been developed with several methodologies: Immunoenzymatic Assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence, Electro Chemiluminescence, Fluorescent Lateral Flow Immunoassays and Immunochromatography. None of these tests should be used for the diagnosis or population screening of the disease, considering that the antibodies appear only on the 8th - 14th day of the disease onset. The present study evaluates a sample of immunofluorescent and immunochromatographic rapid tests to show their agreement in relation to Chemiluminescence. MethodsA diagnostic test evaluation assay was performed to establish the performance of five "rapid" tests (4 immunochromatographic and 1 immunofluorescent tests) for IgG and IgM serology for SARS-CoV-2 using a panel of 30 serum samples from patients received in the laboratory analysis routine. For the evaluation of clinical performance, the qualitative results of the "rapid" tests were compared against those obtained by chemiluminescence, dichotomized as positives ([&ge;] 10 AU / mL) or negative (<10 UA / mL). FindingsThe best agreement is seen in the immunofluorescent assay, for the IgG contrast, with a particularly good kappa index (0.85), without positive disagreements and a negative disagreement of about 15%. In the immunochromatographic methods Kappa index was 0.61 at best, with disagreements in negative findings of {approx}35% and in positive cases of up to {approx}70%. The IgM concordance behavior, on the other hand, reflects a weak to moderate Kappa concordance value (Kappa 0.2 to 0.6), with negative disagreements reaching up to 55% and positives of up to 84%, without any evaluated test reaching Kappa performance equal to or greater than 0.8. InterpretationSerological studies should be used in the clinical and epidemiological context and of other diagnostic tests. Given the high demand and supply in the market of "rapid serological tests", its evaluation against panels of serologically positive or negative samples established by Chemiluminescence or Electro chemiluminescence is essential to authorize its extensive use in populations FundingNone

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 10%
17.9%
2
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
3
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
4
Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
5
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
7
Pathogens
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
8
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
9
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
10
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
11
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
12
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
13
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 51%
2.0%
15
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
Journal of Virological Methods
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
17
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
18
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
19
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
20
Microorganisms
101 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
21
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
22
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
23
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%