Analysis of adjunctive serological detection to nucleic acid test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosis.
Aged
Antibodies, Viral
/ blood
Betacoronavirus
/ genetics
COVID-19
COVID-19 Testing
COVID-19 Vaccines
China
/ epidemiology
Clinical Laboratory Techniques
/ methods
Coronavirus Infections
/ blood
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Immunoglobulin G
/ blood
Immunoglobulin M
/ blood
Male
Middle Aged
Pandemics
Pneumonia, Viral
/ blood
RNA, Viral
/ isolation & purification
Retrospective Studies
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
SARS-CoV-2
Serologic Tests
/ methods
Severity of Illness Index
COVID-19
IgM-IgG antibody test
Nucleic acid test
SARS-CoV-2
Severity of illness
Journal
International immunopharmacology
ISSN: 1878-1705
Titre abrégé: Int Immunopharmacol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 100965259
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
30
04
2020
revised:
08
06
2020
accepted:
24
06
2020
pubmed:
4
7
2020
medline:
25
8
2020
entrez:
4
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic in China, December 2019. The clinical features and treatment of COVID-19 patients remain largely elusive. However, accurate detection is required for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate the antibodies-based test and nucleic acid-based test for SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. We retrospectively studied 133 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and admitted to Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, from January 23 to March 1, 2020. Demographic data, clinical records, laboratory tests, and outcomes were collected. Data were accessed by SARS-CoV-2 IgM-IgG antibody test and real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) detection for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in COVID-19 patients. Of 133 COVID-19 patients, there were 44 moderate cases, 52 severe cases, and 37 critical cases with no differences in gender and age among three subgroups. In RT-PCR detection, the positive rate was 65.9%, 71.2%, and 67.6% in moderate, severe, and critical cases, respectively. Whereas the positive rate of IgM/IgG antibody detection in patients was 79.5%/93.2%, 82.7%/100%, and 73.0%/97.3% in moderate, severe, and critical cases, respectively. Moreover, the IgM and IgG antibodies concentrations were also examined with no differences among three subgroups. The IgM-IgG antibody test exhibited a useful adjunct to RT-PCR detection, and improved the accuracy in COVID-19 diagnosis regardless of the severity of illness, which provides an effective complement to the false-negative results from a nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis after onsets.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic in China, December 2019. The clinical features and treatment of COVID-19 patients remain largely elusive. However, accurate detection is required for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate the antibodies-based test and nucleic acid-based test for SARS-CoV-2-infected patients.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively studied 133 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and admitted to Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, from January 23 to March 1, 2020. Demographic data, clinical records, laboratory tests, and outcomes were collected. Data were accessed by SARS-CoV-2 IgM-IgG antibody test and real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) detection for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in COVID-19 patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 133 COVID-19 patients, there were 44 moderate cases, 52 severe cases, and 37 critical cases with no differences in gender and age among three subgroups. In RT-PCR detection, the positive rate was 65.9%, 71.2%, and 67.6% in moderate, severe, and critical cases, respectively. Whereas the positive rate of IgM/IgG antibody detection in patients was 79.5%/93.2%, 82.7%/100%, and 73.0%/97.3% in moderate, severe, and critical cases, respectively. Moreover, the IgM and IgG antibodies concentrations were also examined with no differences among three subgroups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The IgM-IgG antibody test exhibited a useful adjunct to RT-PCR detection, and improved the accuracy in COVID-19 diagnosis regardless of the severity of illness, which provides an effective complement to the false-negative results from a nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis after onsets.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32619956
pii: S1567-5769(20)31369-2
doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.106746
pmc: PMC7318959
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
COVID-19 Vaccines
0
Covid-19 aAPC vaccine
0
Immunoglobulin G
0
Immunoglobulin M
0
RNA, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
106746Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;93:264-267
pubmed: 32114193
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
JAMA. 2020 Mar 17;323(11):1061-1069
pubmed: 32031570
Nat Med. 2020 Jun;26(6):845-848
pubmed: 32350462
JAMA. 2020 May 12;323(18):1846-1848
pubmed: 32215581
Cell Mol Immunol. 2004 Jun;1(3):193-8
pubmed: 16219167
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Apr;26(4):399-400
pubmed: 32058086
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 May;38(5):515-518
pubmed: 32203294
J Med Virol. 2020 Sep;92(9):1518-1524
pubmed: 32104917
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):597-600
pubmed: 32174267
Clin Imaging. 2020 Jul;63:7-9
pubmed: 32120312
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 May 26;58(6):
pubmed: 32229605
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):507-513
pubmed: 32007143
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2027-2034
pubmed: 32221519
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):514-523
pubmed: 31986261
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):1259-1268
pubmed: 32438868
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Apr 23;58(5):
pubmed: 32132196
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019 Mar;17(3):181-192
pubmed: 30531947
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Apr;104(4):449-450
pubmed: 32057788
J Med Virol. 2020 May;92(5):464-467
pubmed: 32031264
J Med Virol. 2020 Apr;92(4):424-432
pubmed: 31981224
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):475-481
pubmed: 32105632
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):970-971
pubmed: 32003551
Clin Chem. 2020 Apr 1;66(4):549-555
pubmed: 32031583