Use este identificador para citar ou linkar para este item: http://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/43360
Registro completo de metadados
Campo DCValorIdioma
dc.creatorCharpentier, Charlotte-
dc.creatorIchou, Houria-
dc.creatorDamond, Florence-
dc.creatorBouvet, Elisabeth-
dc.creatorChaix, Marie-Laure-
dc.creatorFerré, Valentine-
dc.creatorDelaugerre, Constance-
dc.creatorMahjoub, Nadia-
dc.creatorLarrouy, Lucile-
dc.creatorLe Hingrat, Quentin-
dc.creatorVisseaux, Benoit-
dc.creatorMackiewicz, Vincent-
dc.creatorDescamps, Diane-
dc.creatorDescamps, Diane-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-08T18:58:35Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-08T18:58:35Z-
dc.date.issued2020-11-
dc.identifier.citationCHARPENTIER, C. et al. Performance evaluation of two SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid tests (Covid-Presto and NG-Test) and one IgG automated immunoassay (Abbott). Journal of Clinical Virology, [S.l.], v. 132, Nov. 2020.pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653220303607pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/43360-
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to assess the analytical performances, sensitivity and specificity, of two rapid tests (Covid- Presto® test rapid Covid-19 IgG/IgM and NG-Test® IgM-IgG COVID-19) and one automated immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) for detecting anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. This study was performed with: (i) a positive panel constituted of 88 SARS-CoV-2 specimens collected from patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, and (ii) a negative panel of 120 serum samples, all collected before November 2019, including 64 samples with a cross-reactivity panel. Sensitivity of Covid-Presto® test for IgM and IgG was 78.4% and 92.0%, respectively. Sensitivity of NG-Test® for IgM and IgG was 96.6% and 94.9%, respectively. Sensitivity of Abbott IgG assay was 96.5% showing an excellent agreement with the two rapid tests (κ = 0.947 and κ = 0.936 for NGTest ® and Covid-Presto® test, respectively). An excellent agreement was also observed between the two rapid tests (κ = 0.937). Specificity for IgM was 100% and 86.5% for Covid-Presto® test and NG-Test®, respectively. Specificity for IgG was 92.0%, 94.9% and 96.5% for Covid-Presto®, NGTest ®, and Abbott, respectively. Most of the false positive results observed with NG-Test® resulted from samples containing malarial antibodies. In conclusion, performances of these 2 rapid tests are very good and comparable to those obtained with automated immunoassay, except for IgM specificity with the NG-Test®. Thus, isolated IgM should be cautiously interpreted due to the possible false-positive reactions with this test. Finally, before their large use, the rapid tests must be reliably evaluated with adequate and large panel including early seroconversion and possible cross-reactive samples.pt_BR
dc.languageen_USpt_BR
dc.publisherElsevierpt_BR
dc.rightsrestrictAccesspt_BR
dc.sourceJournal of Clinical Virologypt_BR
dc.subjectSevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)pt_BR
dc.subjectSerologypt_BR
dc.subjectRapid testpt_BR
dc.subjectCross-reactivitypt_BR
dc.titlePerformance evaluation of two SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid tests (Covid-Presto and NG-Test) and one IgG automated immunoassay (Abbott)pt_BR
dc.typeArtigopt_BR
Aparece nas coleções:FCS - Artigos sobre Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Arquivos associados a este item:
Não existem arquivos associados a este item.


Os itens no repositório estão protegidos por copyright, com todos os direitos reservados, salvo quando é indicado o contrário.