lnu.sePublications
Planned maintenance
A system upgrade is planned for 10/12-2024, at 12:00-13:00. During this time DiVA will be unavailable.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
High-throughput immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2: considerable differences in performance when comparing three methods
Växjö Central Hospital, Sweden; Blekinge County Hospital, Sweden.
Växjö Central Hospital, Sweden;Umeå University, Sweden.
Blekinge County Hospital, Sweden.
Växjö Central Hospital, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2021 (English)In: Infectious Diseases, ISSN 2374-4235, E-ISSN 2374-4243, Vol. 53, no 10, p. 805-810Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: The recently launched high-throughput assays for detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 has contributed to the managing strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to investigate the performance of three high-throughput assays and one rapid lateral flow test relative to regulatory authorities' recommended criteria.

METHODS: A total of 315 samples, including 150 pre-pandemic samples, 152 samples from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive individuals and 13 potentially cross-reactive samples were analysed with SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche, Solna, Sweden), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy) and 2019-nCOV IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Dynamiker Biotechnology Co., Tianjin, China).

RESULTS: All assays performed with a high level of specificity ranging from 96.7% to 99.3%. Sensitivity differed more between the assays, Roche exhibiting the highest sensitivity of 98.7%. The corresponding figures for Abbott, DiaSorin and Dynamiker Biotechnology were 80.9%, 89.0% and 72.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: The results of the evaluated SARS-CoV-2 assays vary considerably, as well as their ability to fulfil the performance criteria proposed by regulatory authorities. Introduction into clinical use in low-prevalent settings, should, therefore, be made with caution.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2021. Vol. 53, no 10, p. 805-810
Keywords [en]
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, antibodies, immunology, serology
National Category
Biomedical Laboratory Science/Technology Clinical Laboratory Medicine
Research subject
Natural Science, Biomedical Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-111079DOI: 10.1080/23744235.2021.1931434ISI: 000656068600001PubMedID: 34053400Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85107335022OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-111079DiVA, id: diva2:1648554
Available from: 2022-03-31 Created: 2022-03-31 Last updated: 2022-04-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Somajo, Sofia

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Somajo, Sofia
In the same journal
Infectious Diseases
Biomedical Laboratory Science/TechnologyClinical Laboratory Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 92 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf