Performance evaluation of two SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid tests (Covid-Presto and NG-Test) and one IgG automated immunoassay (Abbott)

dc.creatorCharpentier, Charlotte
dc.creatorIchou, Houria
dc.creatorDamond, Florence
dc.creatorBouvet, Elisabeth
dc.creatorChaix, Marie-Laure
dc.creatorFerré, Valentine
dc.creatorDelaugerre, Constance
dc.creatorMahjoub, Nadia
dc.creatorLarrouy, Lucile
dc.creatorLe Hingrat, Quentin
dc.creatorVisseaux, Benoit
dc.creatorMackiewicz, Vincent
dc.creatorDescamps, Diane
dc.creatorDescamps, Diane
dc.date2020-10-08T18:58:35Z
dc.date2020-10-08T18:58:35Z
dc.date2020-11
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-28T20:01:37Z
dc.date.available2023-09-28T20:01:37Z
dc.identifierCHARPENTIER, C. et al. Performance evaluation of two SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid tests (Covid-Presto and NG-Test) and one IgG automated immunoassay (Abbott). Journal of Clinical Virology, [S.l.], v. 132, Nov. 2020.
dc.identifierhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653220303607
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/43360
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/9042674
dc.descriptionThe aim of this study was to assess the analytical performances, sensitivity and specificity, of two rapid tests (Covid- Presto® test rapid Covid-19 IgG/IgM and NG-Test® IgM-IgG COVID-19) and one automated immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) for detecting anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. This study was performed with: (i) a positive panel constituted of 88 SARS-CoV-2 specimens collected from patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, and (ii) a negative panel of 120 serum samples, all collected before November 2019, including 64 samples with a cross-reactivity panel. Sensitivity of Covid-Presto® test for IgM and IgG was 78.4% and 92.0%, respectively. Sensitivity of NG-Test® for IgM and IgG was 96.6% and 94.9%, respectively. Sensitivity of Abbott IgG assay was 96.5% showing an excellent agreement with the two rapid tests (κ = 0.947 and κ = 0.936 for NGTest ® and Covid-Presto® test, respectively). An excellent agreement was also observed between the two rapid tests (κ = 0.937). Specificity for IgM was 100% and 86.5% for Covid-Presto® test and NG-Test®, respectively. Specificity for IgG was 92.0%, 94.9% and 96.5% for Covid-Presto®, NGTest ®, and Abbott, respectively. Most of the false positive results observed with NG-Test® resulted from samples containing malarial antibodies. In conclusion, performances of these 2 rapid tests are very good and comparable to those obtained with automated immunoassay, except for IgM specificity with the NG-Test®. Thus, isolated IgM should be cautiously interpreted due to the possible false-positive reactions with this test. Finally, before their large use, the rapid tests must be reliably evaluated with adequate and large panel including early seroconversion and possible cross-reactive samples.
dc.languageen_US
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.rightsrestrictAccess
dc.sourceJournal of Clinical Virology
dc.subjectSevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)
dc.subjectSerology
dc.subjectRapid test
dc.subjectCross-reactivity
dc.titlePerformance evaluation of two SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid tests (Covid-Presto and NG-Test) and one IgG automated immunoassay (Abbott)
dc.typeArtigo


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución