476624711

Clinical performance of different SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibody tests / Niko Kohmer, Sandra Westhaus, Cornelia Rühl, Sandra Ciesek, Holger Rabenau

Kohmer, Niko,i1988- [Verfasser] ; Westhaus, Sandra,i1985- [Verfasser] ; Rühl, Cornelia [Verfasser] ; Ciesek, Sandra,i1978- [Verfasser] ; Rabenau, Holger [Verfasser]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) serological assays are urgently needed for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing, and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how commercially available tests perform with real patient samples, and if positive tested samples show neutralizing abilities. Focusing on IgG antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of two enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assays (Euroimmun SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and Vircell COVID‐19 ELISA IgG) in comparison to one lateral flow assay (FaStep COVID‐19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device) and two in‐house developed assays (immunofluorescence assay [IFA] and plaque reduction neutralization test [PRNT]). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals polymerase chain reaction‐diagnosed with COVID‐19. Most of the SARS‐CoV‐2 samples were from individuals with moderate to the severe clinical course, who required an in‐patient hospital stay. For all examined assays, the sensitivity ranged from 58.8 to 76.5% for the early phase of infection (days 5‐9) and from 93.8% to 100% for the later period (days 10‐18).

Journal of medical virology. - Bognor Regis [u.a.] : Wiley, 1977-. - Online-Ressource. - ISSN 1096-9071. - DOI 10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9071. - Band 92, Heft 10 (2020), Seite 2243-2247

 

Je nach Lizenzbedingungen können Sie ggf. nicht über alle unten angegebenen Links auf den Volltext zugreifen. Die für Sie gültige URL finden Sie im Bestandsinfo Ihrer Bibliothek.