Suppr超能文献

“假阳性”难题:IgA参考水平高估了抗SARS-CoV-2抗体的血清阳性率。

The "false-positive" conundrum: IgA reference level overestimates the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

作者信息

Caramelli Bruno, Escalante-Rojas Maria C, Chauhan Hiteshi K C, Siciliano Rinaldo F, Bittencourt Marcio S, Micelli Antonio C

机构信息

InCor, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Department of Cardiology, Fortis Hospital, Mohali, India.

出版信息

J Glob Health. 2021 Jan 16;11:05001. doi: 10.7189/jogh.11.05001.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

On 12 June 2020, Brazil reached the second position worldwide in the number of COVID-19 cases. Authorities increased the number of tests performed, including the identification of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (IgG, IgA, and IgM). There was an overflooding of the market with several tests, and the presence of possible false-positive results became a challenge. The purpose of this study was to describe the seroprevalence and immunoglobulin blood levels in a group of asymptomatic individuals using the reference levels provided by the manufacturer.

METHODS

Levels of IgG and IgA antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were determined in blood serum by the same ELISA (enzyme-linked immunoassay) test. Patients must be free of symptoms.

RESULTS

From 20 to 22 May 2020, 938 individuals were tested. There were 441 (47%) men, age 53 years (interquartile range (IQR) = 39-63.2). The sample included 335 (35.7%) subjects aged ≥60 years old. Subjects with a positive test were 54 (5.8%) for IgG and 96 (10.2%) for IgA and 42 (4.5%) for both IgG and IgA. The prevalence of IgG and IgA positive test was not different in men and women and not different in individuals under 60 and over 60 years of age. Conversely, analysing only individuals with positive tests, the levels of IgG in positive subjects were significantly higher than those with an IgA positive test, 3.00 (IQR = 1.68-5.65), and 1.95 (IQR = 1.40-3.38), respectively;  = 0.017. Additionally, individuals with isolated IgA positive tests had significantly lower levels of IgA than those with both IgA and IgG positive tests: 1.95 (IQR = 1.60-2.40) and 3.15 (IQR = 2.20-3.90), respectively,  = 0.005. These latter data suggest that IgA shows a deviation of the distribution to the left in comparison to IgG distribution data. Indeed, many subjects reported as IgA positive had immunoglobulin levels slightly elevated.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we strongly suggest caution in the interpretation of IgA test results. This recommendation is more important for those with positive IgA just above the reference level.

摘要

背景

2020年6月12日,巴西的新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)病例数位居全球第二。当局增加了检测数量,包括对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)抗体(IgG、IgA和IgM)的检测。市场上充斥着多种检测方法,可能出现的假阳性结果成为一个挑战。本研究的目的是利用制造商提供的参考水平,描述一组无症状个体的血清阳性率和免疫球蛋白血液水平。

方法

采用相同的酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)试验测定血清中SARS-CoV-2的IgG和IgA抗体水平。患者必须无症状。

结果

2020年5月20日至22日,对938人进行了检测。其中男性441人(47%),年龄53岁(四分位间距(IQR)=39-63.2)。样本包括335名(35.7%)年龄≥60岁的受试者。IgG检测阳性的受试者有54人(5.8%),IgA检测阳性的有96人(10.2%),IgG和IgA均阳性的有42人(4.5%)。IgG和IgA检测阳性率在男性和女性中无差异,在60岁以下和60岁以上个体中也无差异。相反,仅分析检测阳性的个体,IgG阳性受试者的水平显著高于IgA阳性受试者,分别为3.00(IQR=1.68-5.65)和1.95(IQR=1.40-3.38);P=0.017。此外,单纯IgA检测阳性的个体的IgA水平显著低于IgA和IgG均阳性的个体:分别为1.95(IQR=1.60-2.40)和3.15(IQR=2.20-3.90),P=0.005。后一组数据表明,与IgG分布数据相比,IgA的分布向左偏移。事实上,许多报告为IgA阳性的受试者免疫球蛋白水平略有升高。

结论

总之,我们强烈建议在解释IgA检测结果时要谨慎。对于IgA略高于参考水平的阳性者,这一建议更为重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1fb0/7882210/e6031f4571b7/jogh-11-05001-F1.jpg

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