Suppr超能文献

通过两种不同方法,对希腊色雷斯地区一组患者、一个对照组以及医护人员中抗SARS-CoV-2 IgG抗体的流行情况进行检测。

Prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in a group of patients, a control group, and healthcare workers of Thrace area in Greece, by the use of two distinct methods.

作者信息

Konstantinidis Theocharis, Zisaki Stavroula, Mitroulis Ioannis, Cassimos Dimitrios, Nanousi Ioanna, Kontekaki Eftychia G, Petrakis Vasilis, Parrisi Kalliopi, Fotiadou Eleni, Linardou Aikaterini, Lemonakis Nikolaos, Grapsa Anastasia, Gioka Theodora, Lazidis Leonidas, Papagoras Charalampos, Tsigalou Chistina, Panagopoulos Periklis, Skendros Panagiotis, Martinis Georges, Panopoulou Maria

机构信息

MD, PhD, Blood Transfusion Center, University General Hospital of Alexandroupolis Dragana Campus, 68100 Alexandroupolis, Greece, Laboratory of Microbiology, Democritus University of Thrace, University General Hospital of Alexandroupolis Dragana Campus, 68100 Alexandroupolis, Greece.

MSc, Blood Transfusion Center, University General Hospital of Alexandroupolis Dragana Campus, 68100 Alexandroupolis, Greece.

出版信息

Germs. 2021 Sep 29;11(3):372-380. doi: 10.18683/germs.2021.1274. eCollection 2021 Sep.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of different automated immunoassays available in Europe to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; an ELISA assay and a CLIA. The second goal was to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers in Evros area during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19.

METHODS

The study included serum samples from 101 patients with confirmed COVID-19 by RT-PCR and 208 negative patients. Furthermore, it included 1036 healthcare workers (HWs) of the Evros Region, Northern Greece. The measurement of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was performed using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG assay (Epitope Diagnostics, USA).

RESULTS

Of 101 confirmed COVID-19 patients, 82 were hospitalized and 19 were outpatients. Hospitalized patients had higher IgG levels in comparison to outpatients (6.46±2.2 vs. 3.52±1.52, p<0.001). Of 208 non-COVID-19 patients only 1 was positive in both ELISA and CLIA assay. SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibodies were detected in 6 HWs out of 1036 (0.58%) with mean S/CO-value of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG 3.12±1.3 (confidence interval 0.95), which was lower than in COVID-19 patients (3.12 vs. 5.9; p=0.016). The clinical evaluation of two immunoassays showed remarkably high true positivity rates in the confirmed COVID-19 patients. Sensitivities obtained with CLIA and ELISA methods were 99.02% vs. 97.09% and specificities 99.52% vs 99.05% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an acceptable accordance between CLIA and ELISA assays in the confirmed COVID-19 patients. In all subjects included in this study in the past medical history, the information that was obtained included details about the presence of autoimmune diseases.

摘要

引言

本研究的目的是评估欧洲现有的不同自动化免疫测定法检测抗SARS-CoV-2抗体的临床性能,即一种酶联免疫吸附测定法(ELISA)和一种化学发光免疫分析法(CLIA)。第二个目标是估计在COVID-19第一波大流行期间,埃夫罗斯地区医护人员中SARS-CoV-2抗体的血清流行率。

方法

该研究纳入了101例经逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)确诊的COVID-19患者的血清样本和208例阴性患者的血清样本。此外,还纳入了希腊北部埃夫罗斯地区的1036名医护人员。使用雅培SARS-CoV-2 IgG和抗SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG测定法(美国表位诊断公司)检测抗SARS-CoV-2抗体。

结果

101例确诊的COVID-19患者中,82例住院,19例门诊。与门诊患者相比,住院患者的IgG水平更高(6.46±2.2对3.52±1.52,p<0.001)。在208例非COVID-19患者中,只有1例在ELISA和CLIA测定中均呈阳性。在1036名医护人员中,有6人(0.58%)检测到SARS-CoV-2-IgG抗体,抗SARS-CoV-2 IgG的平均S/CO值为3.12±1.3(95%置信区间),低于COVID-19患者(3.12对5.9;p=0.016)。两种免疫测定法的临床评估显示,确诊的COVID-19患者的真阳性率非常高。CLIA和ELISA方法的敏感性分别为99.02%和97.09%,特异性分别为99.52%和99.05%。

结论

我们发现CLIA和ELISA测定法在确诊的COVID-19患者中具有可接受的一致性。在本研究纳入的所有有既往病史的受试者中,获得的信息包括自身免疫性疾病存在情况的详细信息。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

6

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