Validation and performance comparison of three SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody assays

Serology testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is increasingly being used during the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), although its clinical and epidemiologic utilities are still debatable. Characterizing these assays provides scientific basis...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of medical virology 2021-02, Vol.93 (2), p.916-923
Hauptverfasser: Paiva, Kimberly J., Grisson, Ricky D., Chan, Philip A., Huard, Richard C., Caliendo, Angela M., Lonks, John R., King, Ewa, Tang, Eric W., Pytel‐Parenteau, Diane L., Nam, Ga H., Yakirevich, Evgeny, Lu, Shaolei
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 923
container_issue 2
container_start_page 916
container_title Journal of medical virology
container_volume 93
creator Paiva, Kimberly J.
Grisson, Ricky D.
Chan, Philip A.
Huard, Richard C.
Caliendo, Angela M.
Lonks, John R.
King, Ewa
Tang, Eric W.
Pytel‐Parenteau, Diane L.
Nam, Ga H.
Yakirevich, Evgeny
Lu, Shaolei
description Serology testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is increasingly being used during the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), although its clinical and epidemiologic utilities are still debatable. Characterizing these assays provides scientific basis to best use them. The current study assessed one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott COVID‐2 IgG) and two lateral flow assays (STANDARD Q [SQ] IgM/IgG Duo and Wondfo total antibody test) using 113 blood samples from 71 PCR‐confirmed COVID‐19 hospitalized patients, 119 samples with potential cross‐reactions, and 1068 negative controls including 942 pre‐pandemic samples. SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM antibodies became detectable 3‐4 days post‐symptom onset using SQ IgM test and IgG antibodies were first detected 5‐6 days post‐onset using SQ IgG. Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total were able to detect antibodies 7 to 8 days post‐onset. After 14 days post‐symptom onset, the SQ IgG, Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total tests were able to detect antibodies from 100% of the PCR‐confirmed patients in this series; 87.5% sensitivity for SQ IgM. Overall agreement was 88.5% between SQ IgM/IgG and Wondfo Total and 94.6% between SQ IgG and Abbott IgG. No cross‐reaction due to recent sera with three of the endemic coronaviruses was observed. Viral hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main source of limited cross‐reactions. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM. These findings demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of appropriately validated SARS‐CoV‐2 serologic assays with implications for clinical use and epidemiological seroprevalence studies. Research Highlights The validation included two lateral flow assays (Wondfo Total Antibody and SQ IgM/IgG combo) and one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott IgG) All tests except SQ IgM performed well with excellent sensitivities 2 weeks after symptom onset. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM based on 1068 negative controls. Hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main sources of limited cross‐reactions.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jmv.26341
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2427299871</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2427299871</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4541-e583a0dc8eac0dffa8ccd7c33405d06396067c5a6315ba39d2f9d5155cccf45d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10L1OwzAUBWALgWgpDLwAisQCQ9prO3bisar4VSskCl0j13ZEqiQudgPqxiPwjDwJhhYGJBbfwd89ujoIHWPoYwAyWNQvfcJpgndQF4PgsYAU76Iu4ITHnGPWQQfeLwAgE4Tsow4lKQbORRdNZrIqtVyVtolko6OlcYV1tWyUiZStl9KVPnzZIlo9OWOi6fB--vH2PrKz8JKwsirnVq8j6b1c-0O0V8jKm6Pt7KHHy4uH0XU8vru6GQ3HsUpYgmPDMipBq8xIBbooZKaUThWlCTANnAoOPFVMcorZXFKhSSE0w4wppYqEadpDZ5vcpbPPrfGrvC69MlUlG2Nbn5OEpESILMWBnv6hC9u6JlwXVEozAIpFUOcbpZz13pkiX7qylm6dY8i_Os5Dx_l3x8GebBPbeW30r_wpNYDBBryWlVn_n5TfTmabyE9B94a1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2473800319</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validation and performance comparison of three SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody assays</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Paiva, Kimberly J. ; Grisson, Ricky D. ; Chan, Philip A. ; Huard, Richard C. ; Caliendo, Angela M. ; Lonks, John R. ; King, Ewa ; Tang, Eric W. ; Pytel‐Parenteau, Diane L. ; Nam, Ga H. ; Yakirevich, Evgeny ; Lu, Shaolei</creator><creatorcontrib>Paiva, Kimberly J. ; Grisson, Ricky D. ; Chan, Philip A. ; Huard, Richard C. ; Caliendo, Angela M. ; Lonks, John R. ; King, Ewa ; Tang, Eric W. ; Pytel‐Parenteau, Diane L. ; Nam, Ga H. ; Yakirevich, Evgeny ; Lu, Shaolei</creatorcontrib><description>Serology testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is increasingly being used during the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), although its clinical and epidemiologic utilities are still debatable. Characterizing these assays provides scientific basis to best use them. The current study assessed one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott COVID‐2 IgG) and two lateral flow assays (STANDARD Q [SQ] IgM/IgG Duo and Wondfo total antibody test) using 113 blood samples from 71 PCR‐confirmed COVID‐19 hospitalized patients, 119 samples with potential cross‐reactions, and 1068 negative controls including 942 pre‐pandemic samples. SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM antibodies became detectable 3‐4 days post‐symptom onset using SQ IgM test and IgG antibodies were first detected 5‐6 days post‐onset using SQ IgG. Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total were able to detect antibodies 7 to 8 days post‐onset. After 14 days post‐symptom onset, the SQ IgG, Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total tests were able to detect antibodies from 100% of the PCR‐confirmed patients in this series; 87.5% sensitivity for SQ IgM. Overall agreement was 88.5% between SQ IgM/IgG and Wondfo Total and 94.6% between SQ IgG and Abbott IgG. No cross‐reaction due to recent sera with three of the endemic coronaviruses was observed. Viral hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main source of limited cross‐reactions. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM. These findings demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of appropriately validated SARS‐CoV‐2 serologic assays with implications for clinical use and epidemiological seroprevalence studies. Research Highlights The validation included two lateral flow assays (Wondfo Total Antibody and SQ IgM/IgG combo) and one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott IgG) All tests except SQ IgM performed well with excellent sensitivities 2 weeks after symptom onset. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM based on 1068 negative controls. Hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main sources of limited cross‐reactions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0146-6615</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-9071</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26341</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32710669</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Antibodies ; Antibodies, Viral - blood ; Assaying ; Chemiluminescence ; Coronaviridae ; Coronaviruses ; COVID-19 ; COVID-19 - diagnosis ; COVID-19 - immunology ; COVID-19 Serological Testing - methods ; Cross Reactions ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Hepatitis ; Humans ; Immunoassay - methods ; Immunoglobulin G ; Immunoglobulin G - blood ; Immunoglobulin M ; Immunoglobulin M - blood ; immunology ; Luminescent Measurements - methods ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pandemics ; Public health ; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic ; SARS‐CoV‐2 ; Sensitivity ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Serology ; Severe acute respiratory syndrome ; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ; Utilities ; Viral diseases ; Virology</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical virology, 2021-02, Vol.93 (2), p.916-923</ispartof><rights>2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC</rights><rights>2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4541-e583a0dc8eac0dffa8ccd7c33405d06396067c5a6315ba39d2f9d5155cccf45d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4541-e583a0dc8eac0dffa8ccd7c33405d06396067c5a6315ba39d2f9d5155cccf45d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2870-5793</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjmv.26341$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjmv.26341$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32710669$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Paiva, Kimberly J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grisson, Ricky D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, Philip A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huard, Richard C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caliendo, Angela M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lonks, John R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Ewa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Eric W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pytel‐Parenteau, Diane L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nam, Ga H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yakirevich, Evgeny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Shaolei</creatorcontrib><title>Validation and performance comparison of three SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody assays</title><title>Journal of medical virology</title><addtitle>J Med Virol</addtitle><description>Serology testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is increasingly being used during the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), although its clinical and epidemiologic utilities are still debatable. Characterizing these assays provides scientific basis to best use them. The current study assessed one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott COVID‐2 IgG) and two lateral flow assays (STANDARD Q [SQ] IgM/IgG Duo and Wondfo total antibody test) using 113 blood samples from 71 PCR‐confirmed COVID‐19 hospitalized patients, 119 samples with potential cross‐reactions, and 1068 negative controls including 942 pre‐pandemic samples. SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM antibodies became detectable 3‐4 days post‐symptom onset using SQ IgM test and IgG antibodies were first detected 5‐6 days post‐onset using SQ IgG. Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total were able to detect antibodies 7 to 8 days post‐onset. After 14 days post‐symptom onset, the SQ IgG, Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total tests were able to detect antibodies from 100% of the PCR‐confirmed patients in this series; 87.5% sensitivity for SQ IgM. Overall agreement was 88.5% between SQ IgM/IgG and Wondfo Total and 94.6% between SQ IgG and Abbott IgG. No cross‐reaction due to recent sera with three of the endemic coronaviruses was observed. Viral hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main source of limited cross‐reactions. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM. These findings demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of appropriately validated SARS‐CoV‐2 serologic assays with implications for clinical use and epidemiological seroprevalence studies. Research Highlights The validation included two lateral flow assays (Wondfo Total Antibody and SQ IgM/IgG combo) and one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott IgG) All tests except SQ IgM performed well with excellent sensitivities 2 weeks after symptom onset. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM based on 1068 negative controls. Hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main sources of limited cross‐reactions.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Antibodies</subject><subject>Antibodies, Viral - blood</subject><subject>Assaying</subject><subject>Chemiluminescence</subject><subject>Coronaviridae</subject><subject>Coronaviruses</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>COVID-19 - diagnosis</subject><subject>COVID-19 - immunology</subject><subject>COVID-19 Serological Testing - methods</subject><subject>Cross Reactions</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hepatitis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunoassay - methods</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G - blood</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin M</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin M - blood</subject><subject>immunology</subject><subject>Luminescent Measurements - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Pandemics</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Reagent Kits, Diagnostic</subject><subject>SARS‐CoV‐2</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Serology</subject><subject>Severe acute respiratory syndrome</subject><subject>Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2</subject><subject>Utilities</subject><subject>Viral diseases</subject><subject>Virology</subject><issn>0146-6615</issn><issn>1096-9071</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10L1OwzAUBWALgWgpDLwAisQCQ9prO3bisar4VSskCl0j13ZEqiQudgPqxiPwjDwJhhYGJBbfwd89ujoIHWPoYwAyWNQvfcJpgndQF4PgsYAU76Iu4ITHnGPWQQfeLwAgE4Tsow4lKQbORRdNZrIqtVyVtolko6OlcYV1tWyUiZStl9KVPnzZIlo9OWOi6fB--vH2PrKz8JKwsirnVq8j6b1c-0O0V8jKm6Pt7KHHy4uH0XU8vru6GQ3HsUpYgmPDMipBq8xIBbooZKaUThWlCTANnAoOPFVMcorZXFKhSSE0w4wppYqEadpDZ5vcpbPPrfGrvC69MlUlG2Nbn5OEpESILMWBnv6hC9u6JlwXVEozAIpFUOcbpZz13pkiX7qylm6dY8i_Os5Dx_l3x8GebBPbeW30r_wpNYDBBryWlVn_n5TfTmabyE9B94a1</recordid><startdate>202102</startdate><enddate>202102</enddate><creator>Paiva, Kimberly J.</creator><creator>Grisson, Ricky D.</creator><creator>Chan, Philip A.</creator><creator>Huard, Richard C.</creator><creator>Caliendo, Angela M.</creator><creator>Lonks, John R.</creator><creator>King, Ewa</creator><creator>Tang, Eric W.</creator><creator>Pytel‐Parenteau, Diane L.</creator><creator>Nam, Ga H.</creator><creator>Yakirevich, Evgeny</creator><creator>Lu, Shaolei</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2870-5793</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202102</creationdate><title>Validation and performance comparison of three SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody assays</title><author>Paiva, Kimberly J. ; Grisson, Ricky D. ; Chan, Philip A. ; Huard, Richard C. ; Caliendo, Angela M. ; Lonks, John R. ; King, Ewa ; Tang, Eric W. ; Pytel‐Parenteau, Diane L. ; Nam, Ga H. ; Yakirevich, Evgeny ; Lu, Shaolei</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4541-e583a0dc8eac0dffa8ccd7c33405d06396067c5a6315ba39d2f9d5155cccf45d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Antibodies</topic><topic>Antibodies, Viral - blood</topic><topic>Assaying</topic><topic>Chemiluminescence</topic><topic>Coronaviridae</topic><topic>Coronaviruses</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>COVID-19 - diagnosis</topic><topic>COVID-19 - immunology</topic><topic>COVID-19 Serological Testing - methods</topic><topic>Cross Reactions</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hepatitis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunoassay - methods</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G - blood</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin M</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin M - blood</topic><topic>immunology</topic><topic>Luminescent Measurements - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Pandemics</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Reagent Kits, Diagnostic</topic><topic>SARS‐CoV‐2</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Serology</topic><topic>Severe acute respiratory syndrome</topic><topic>Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2</topic><topic>Utilities</topic><topic>Viral diseases</topic><topic>Virology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Paiva, Kimberly J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grisson, Ricky D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, Philip A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huard, Richard C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caliendo, Angela M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lonks, John R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Ewa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tang, Eric W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pytel‐Parenteau, Diane L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nam, Ga H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yakirevich, Evgeny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Shaolei</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical virology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Paiva, Kimberly J.</au><au>Grisson, Ricky D.</au><au>Chan, Philip A.</au><au>Huard, Richard C.</au><au>Caliendo, Angela M.</au><au>Lonks, John R.</au><au>King, Ewa</au><au>Tang, Eric W.</au><au>Pytel‐Parenteau, Diane L.</au><au>Nam, Ga H.</au><au>Yakirevich, Evgeny</au><au>Lu, Shaolei</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validation and performance comparison of three SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody assays</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical virology</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Virol</addtitle><date>2021-02</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>93</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>916</spage><epage>923</epage><pages>916-923</pages><issn>0146-6615</issn><eissn>1096-9071</eissn><abstract>Serology testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is increasingly being used during the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), although its clinical and epidemiologic utilities are still debatable. Characterizing these assays provides scientific basis to best use them. The current study assessed one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott COVID‐2 IgG) and two lateral flow assays (STANDARD Q [SQ] IgM/IgG Duo and Wondfo total antibody test) using 113 blood samples from 71 PCR‐confirmed COVID‐19 hospitalized patients, 119 samples with potential cross‐reactions, and 1068 negative controls including 942 pre‐pandemic samples. SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM antibodies became detectable 3‐4 days post‐symptom onset using SQ IgM test and IgG antibodies were first detected 5‐6 days post‐onset using SQ IgG. Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total were able to detect antibodies 7 to 8 days post‐onset. After 14 days post‐symptom onset, the SQ IgG, Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total tests were able to detect antibodies from 100% of the PCR‐confirmed patients in this series; 87.5% sensitivity for SQ IgM. Overall agreement was 88.5% between SQ IgM/IgG and Wondfo Total and 94.6% between SQ IgG and Abbott IgG. No cross‐reaction due to recent sera with three of the endemic coronaviruses was observed. Viral hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main source of limited cross‐reactions. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM. These findings demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of appropriately validated SARS‐CoV‐2 serologic assays with implications for clinical use and epidemiological seroprevalence studies. Research Highlights The validation included two lateral flow assays (Wondfo Total Antibody and SQ IgM/IgG combo) and one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott IgG) All tests except SQ IgM performed well with excellent sensitivities 2 weeks after symptom onset. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM based on 1068 negative controls. Hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main sources of limited cross‐reactions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>32710669</pmid><doi>10.1002/jmv.26341</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2870-5793</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0146-6615
ispartof Journal of medical virology, 2021-02, Vol.93 (2), p.916-923
issn 0146-6615
1096-9071
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2427299871
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Aged
Antibodies
Antibodies, Viral - blood
Assaying
Chemiluminescence
Coronaviridae
Coronaviruses
COVID-19
COVID-19 - diagnosis
COVID-19 - immunology
COVID-19 Serological Testing - methods
Cross Reactions
Epidemiology
Female
Hepatitis
Humans
Immunoassay - methods
Immunoglobulin G
Immunoglobulin G - blood
Immunoglobulin M
Immunoglobulin M - blood
immunology
Luminescent Measurements - methods
Male
Middle Aged
Pandemics
Public health
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
SARS‐CoV‐2
Sensitivity
Sensitivity and Specificity
Serology
Severe acute respiratory syndrome
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
Utilities
Viral diseases
Virology
title Validation and performance comparison of three SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody assays
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T16%3A28%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validation%20and%20performance%20comparison%20of%20three%20SARS%E2%80%90CoV%E2%80%902%20antibody%20assays&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20virology&rft.au=Paiva,%20Kimberly%20J.&rft.date=2021-02&rft.volume=93&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=916&rft.epage=923&rft.pages=916-923&rft.issn=0146-6615&rft.eissn=1096-9071&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jmv.26341&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2427299871%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2473800319&rft_id=info:pmid/32710669&rfr_iscdi=true