• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Am J Clin Pathol . Review of Current Advances in Serologic Testing for COVID-19

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Am J Clin Pathol


. 2020 Jun 25;aqaa112.
doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa112. Online ahead of print.
Review of Current Advances in Serologic Testing for COVID-19


Andrea P Espejo[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yamac Akgun[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Abdulaziz F Al Mana[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Youley Tjendra[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Nicolas C Millan[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Carmen Gomez-Fernandez[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Carolyn Cray[SUP] 2 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Objectives: To examine and summarize the current literature on serologic methods for the detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
Methods: A literature review was performed using searches in databases including PubMed, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Thirty-two peer-reviewed papers and 23 preprints were examined.
Results: The studies included lateral flow immunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, chemiluminescence immunoassay, and neutralizing antibody assays. The use of all major SARS-CoV-2 antigens was demonstrated to have diagnostic value. Assays measuring total antibody reactivity had the highest sensitivity. In addition, all the methods provided opportunities to characterize the humoral immune response by isotype. The combined use of IgM and IgG detection resulted in a higher sensitivity than that observed when detecting either isotype alone. Although IgA was rarely studied, it was also demonstrated to be a sensitive marker of infection, and levels correlated with disease severity and neutralizing activity.
Conclusions: The use of serologic testing, in conjunction with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, was demonstrated to significantly increase the sensitivity of detection of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. There was conflicting evidence regarding whether antibody titers correlated with clinical severity. However, preliminary investigations indicated some immunoassays may be a surrogate for the prediction of neutralizing antibody titers and the selection of recovered patients for convalescent serum donation.

Keywords: COVID-19; Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA); Convalescent serum; Coronavirus; Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); Immunoassays; Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA); Plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT); SARS-CoV-2; Serology.
 
Back
Top Bottom