Department of General Internal Medicine, Hirata Central Hospital, Hirata, Ishikawa district, Fukushima 963-8202, Japan; Department of Radiation Health Management, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima City, Fukushima 960-1295, Japan.
Department of Radiation Health Management, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima City, Fukushima 960-1295, Japan; Southern Tohoku Research Institute for Neuroscience, 7-115, Yatsuyamada, Koriyama, Fukushima 963-8563, Japan.
Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 Mar;92:107360. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.107360. Epub 2020 Dec 30.
The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between the results of two serology assays for detection of COVID-19 among medical staff, who are at higher risks of infection.
The immunochromatography (ICG) rapid test kit and the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) quantitative antibody test were performed. The differences in IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays were descriptively analyzed.
A total of 637 participants were included in this research. Two staff were IgM positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test (cutoff value: 10 AU/ml) of 51 staff who were IgM positive in the rapid test kit. Six staff were IgG positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test of 56 staff who were IgG positive in the rapid test kit. The proportion of antibody positive staff differed greatly between the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test.
There was a vast difference in the proportions of IgG and IgM antibody positive staff in the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test results. The results from the only rapid test kit might have to be interpreted with caution. Further studies to evaluate antibody testing accuracy are required to promote the understanding of each assay's characteristics and determine their purposes in each community.
本研究旨在探讨两种血清学检测方法在感染风险较高的医务人员中检测 COVID-19 的结果差异。
采用免疫层析（ICG）快速检测试剂盒和化学发光免疫分析（CLIA）定量抗体检测试剂盒进行检测。对不同血清学检测方法中 IgM 和 IgG 抗体阳性率的差异进行描述性分析。
本研究共纳入 637 名参与者。在 51 名快速检测试剂盒 IgM 阳性的工作人员中，有 2 名工作人员在 CLIA 定量抗体检测（10 AU/ml 为临界值）中 IgM 阳性。在 56 名快速检测试剂盒 IgG 阳性的工作人员中，有 6 名工作人员在 CLIA 定量抗体检测中 IgG 阳性。两种检测试剂盒的抗体阳性工作人员比例差异很大。
快速检测试剂盒和 CLIA 定量抗体检测结果中 IgG 和 IgM 抗体阳性工作人员的比例存在很大差异。仅使用快速检测试剂盒的结果可能需要谨慎解释。需要进一步研究评估抗体检测的准确性，以促进对每种检测方法特点的理解，并确定其在每个社区中的用途。
