Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 213.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Expert+Rev+Clin+Immunol 2021 ; 17 (6): 573-599 Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
A comparative review of immunoassays for COVID-19 detection #MMPMID33787412
Mohit E; Rostami Z; Vahidi H
Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2021[Jun]; 17 (6): 573-599 PMID33787412show ga
Introduction: The gold standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which is expensive, time-consuming and may result in false-negative results. Serological tests can be employed for RT-PCR negative patients, contact tracing, determining the probability of protection against re-infection, and seroepidemiological studies.Areas covered: The main methodologies of serology-based tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) and lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) were reviewed and their diagnostic performances were compared. Herein, a literature review on the databases of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020 based on the main serological methods for COVID-19 detection with the focus on comparative experiments was performed. The review was updated on December 31, 2020.Expert opinion: Serology testing could be considered as a part of diagnostic panel two-week post symptom onset. Higher sensitivity for serology-based tests could be achieved by determining combined IgG/IgM titers. Furthermore, higher sensitive serological test detecting neutralization antibody could be developed by targeting spike (S) antigen. It was also demonstrated that the sensitivity of ELISA/CLIA-based methods are higher than LFIA devices.
Expert+Rev+Clin+Immunol 2021 ; 17 (6): 573-599
