Benefits and limitations of serological assays in COVID-19 infection.
COVID-19
IgG
IgM
SARS CoV-2
Serology
Journal
The Indian journal of tuberculosis
ISSN: 0019-5707
Titre abrégé: Indian J Tuberc
Pays: India
ID NLM: 0373027
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
24
07
2020
accepted:
31
07
2020
pubmed:
15
12
2020
medline:
29
12
2020
entrez:
14
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate and rapid diagnostic tests are critical for achieving control of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19), a pandemic illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Diagnostic tests for covid-19 fall into two main categories: molecular tests that detect viral RNA, and serological tests that detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a molecular test, has become the gold standard for diagnosis of covid-19; however, this test has many limitations that include potential false negative results, changes in diagnostic accuracy over the disease course, and precarious availability of test materials. Serological tests have generated substantial interest as an alternative or complement to RT-PCR and other Nucleic acid tests in the diagnosis of acute infection, as some might be cheaper and easier to implement at the point of care. A clear advantage of these tests over RT-PCR is that they can identify individuals previously infected by SARS-CoV-2, even if they never underwent testing while acutely ill. Many serological tests for covid-19 have become available in a short period, including some marketed for use as rapid, point-of-care tests. The pace of development has, however, exceeded that of rigorous evaluation, and important uncertainty about test accuracy remains.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33308664
pii: S0019-5707(20)30128-1
doi: 10.1016/j.ijtb.2020.07.034
pmc: PMC7409828
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S163-S166Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Tuberculosis Association of India. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest The authors have none to declare.
Références
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2004 Jan;11(1):227-8
pubmed: 14715574
Glycoconj J. 2006 Feb;23(1-2):59-72
pubmed: 16575523
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733
pubmed: 31978945
Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1033-1036
pubmed: 32398876
Cell. 2020 Apr 16;181(2):281-292.e6
pubmed: 32155444
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):778-785
pubmed: 32198501
Antiviral Res. 2014 Mar;103:39-50
pubmed: 24418573
Isr Med Assoc J. 2020 Apr;22(4):203-210
pubmed: 32286019
J Med Virol. 2020 Sep;92(9):1518-1524
pubmed: 32104917
Nat Microbiol. 2020 Apr;5(4):536-544
pubmed: 32123347
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Dec;41(12):5781-2
pubmed: 14662982
Cell Mol Immunol. 2004 Aug;1(4):304-7
pubmed: 16225774
J Infect Dis. 2004 Jul 15;190(2):379-86
pubmed: 15216476
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-1062
pubmed: 32171076
PLoS Pathog. 2014 Nov 06;10(11):e1004502
pubmed: 25375324
Virus Res. 2015 Apr 16;202:120-34
pubmed: 25445340
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Apr 7;106(14):5871-6
pubmed: 19321428
Nature. 2016 Mar 3;531(7592):118-21
pubmed: 26935699
Adv Virus Res. 2019;105:93-116
pubmed: 31522710
J Struct Biol. 2011 Apr;174(1):11-22
pubmed: 21130884
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2004 Jul;11(4):665-8
pubmed: 15242938
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Apr 12;8:569266
pubmed: 33912572
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
J Infect Dis. 2005 Jun 15;191(12):2033-7
pubmed: 15897988
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2006 Mar;13(3):409-14
pubmed: 16522785
Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2004 Mar;11(2):287-91
pubmed: 15013977
J Clin Virol. 2012 Feb;53(2):135-9
pubmed: 22188723
J Med Virol. 2020 May;92(5):464-467
pubmed: 32031264
J Virol. 2003 Aug;77(16):8801-11
pubmed: 12885899
Lancet. 2004 Mar 13;363(9412):841-5
pubmed: 15031027
J Med Virol. 2005 Jun;76(2):137-42
pubmed: 15834868