Suppr超能文献

罗氏 Elecsys 与 Abbott 严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)血清学检测试剂盒用于 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的比较临床评估。

Comparative Clinical Evaluation of the Roche Elecsys and Abbott Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Serology Assays for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

机构信息

From the Department of Laboratory Medicine (Tan, Saw, Chew, C. Wang, Pajarillaga, Khoo, W. Wang, Ali, Yang, Jureen, Sethi), National University Hospital, Singapore.

The Biostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore (Chan).

出版信息

Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021 Jan 1;145(1):32-38. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0499-SA.

Abstract

CONTEXT.—: The use of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic tests detects antibodies in the host, contributing to the identification of individuals who have been exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVE.—: To critically evaluate 2 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serology tests.

DESIGN.—: A total of 333 unique, nonduplicated serum samples obtained from COVID-19 patients (n = 170) and negative controls (n = 163) obtained before December 2019 were used in the study. Samples were tested on the Roche E411 and Abbott Architect i4000SR platforms, and results were correlated to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results and clinical symptoms.

RESULTS.—: There was a strong level of agreement in the qualitative results between both assays, with a Cohen κ value of .840, P < .001. The specificity for both Roche and Abbott were excellent at 100%. Roche exhibited marginally better performance in the 21 days or more group with a sensitivity of 90.6% (95% CI, 75.8%-96.8%) versus an Abbott sensitivity of 84.4% (95% CI, 68.3%-93.1%), as well as in the 14- to 20-day group with a sensitivity of 85.7% (95% CI, 65.4%-95.0%) versus an Abbott sensitivity of 81.0% (95% CI, 60.0%-92.3%). Less than 14 days of symptoms groups exhibited poor sensitivity at less than 50% for both assays. The areas under curve (± standard error) for Roche (0.894 ± 0.025, P < .001) and Abbott (0.884 ± 0.026, P < .001) were very similar. Potential confounders for negative serologic results include antiretroviral medication use and pauci-symptomatic patients.

CONCLUSIONS.—: Specificities for high-throughput Roche and Abbott immunoassays are excellent, but users need to be cautious to interpret serologic test results after 14 days of symptoms to avoid false negatives.

摘要

背景

严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)血清学检测用于检测宿主中的抗体,有助于确定接触过 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的个体。

目的

批判性地评估 2 种市售 SARS-CoV-2 血清学检测方法。

设计

这项研究共使用了 333 份来自 COVID-19 患者(n = 170)和 2019 年 12 月前获得的阴性对照(n = 163)的独特、非重复血清样本。样本在罗氏 E411 和雅培 Architect i4000SR 平台上进行检测,并将结果与逆转录聚合酶链反应(PCR)结果和临床症状相关联。

结果

两种检测方法的定性结果具有很强的一致性,Cohen κ 值为.840,P <.001。罗氏和雅培的特异性均为 100%,表现出极好的特异性。罗氏在 21 天或以上组的表现略优,敏感性为 90.6%(95%CI,75.8%-96.8%),而雅培的敏感性为 84.4%(95%CI,68.3%-93.1%);在 14 至 20 天组中,罗氏的敏感性为 85.7%(95%CI,65.4%-95.0%),而雅培的敏感性为 81.0%(95%CI,60.0%-92.3%)。症状少于 14 天的组,两种检测方法的敏感性均低于 50%。罗氏(0.894 ± 0.025,P <.001)和雅培(0.884 ± 0.026,P <.001)的曲线下面积(±标准误差)非常相似。阴性血清学检测结果的潜在混杂因素包括抗逆转录病毒药物的使用和症状轻微的患者。

结论

高通量罗氏和雅培免疫测定的特异性非常高,但使用者需要谨慎解释 14 天症状后的血清学检测结果,以避免假阴性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验