| Literature DB >> 33135049 |
Clarence W Chan1, Sajid Shahul2,3, Cheyenne Coleman4, Vera Tesic1,3, Kyle Parker1, Kiang-Teck J Yeo1,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the Truvian Easy Check coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) IgM/IgG anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody test.Serologic assays have become increasingly available for surveillance through the Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization in the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic. However, widespread application of serologic assays has been curbed by reports of faulty or inaccurate tests. Therefore, rapid COVID-19 antibody tests need to be thoroughly validated prior to their implementation.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus; Diagnostics; IgG; IgM; Lateral flow; Point-of-care; SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; Surveillance
Year: 2021 PMID: 33135049 PMCID: PMC7665287 DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa221
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Clin Pathol ISSN: 0002-9173 Impact factor: 2.493
Figure 3Comparison of the Truvian Easy Check and Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. A total of 140 patient samples (99 COVID-19-positive, PCR-confirmed samples and 41 prepandemic volunteer samples) were tested using both the Easy Check and Roche Elecsys assays, yielding an overall concordance rate of 98.6% between the two serologic tests. Among the 99 COVID-19-positive, PCR-confirmed samples, there were 2 samples for which the Easy Check assay resulted as positive, whereas the Roche Elecsys assay resulted as negative.
Cross-Reactivity of the Truvian Easy Check Test Against Other Common Virusesa
| Sera Sample | Truvian IgM Reactivity | Truvian IgG Reactivity | Roche Elecsys | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | COI or Mean COI | Resultb | |
| OC43 CVc | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0.097 | Negative |
| 229E CVc | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.095 | Negative |
| OC43 CV + 229E CVc | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.108 | Negative |
| NL63 CVc | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0.091 | Negative |
| HKU1 CVc | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.093 | Negative |
| HKU1 CV + RSVc | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.101 | Negative |
| Rhinovirusc | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.151 | Negative |
| HepBSd | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0.090 | Negative |
| HCVd | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0.088 | Negative |
| HIVd | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0.086 | Negative |
| Total | 0 | 40 | 0 | 40 | 0.095 |
COI, cutoff index ; CV, coronavirus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HepBS, hepatitis B surface antigen; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus.
aZero cross-reactivity was observed with 40 samples from patients infected with hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV, or a common, non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory virus and confirmed by either antibody or PCR positivity. OC43, 229E, NL63, and HKU1 are common strains of other CVs.
bNegative result is defined as both individual and mean COIs < 1.0.
cPCR-positive.
dAntibody-positive.
Interference Analysis of the Truvian Easy Check Testa
| Interferent | Positive Control | Negative Control | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IgMb | IgGb | IgMb | IgGb | |
| Biotin (ng/mL) | ||||
| 0 | + | + | – | – |
| 6,000 | + | + | – | – |
| 12,000 | + | + | – | – |
| Bilirubin (mg/dL) | ||||
| 0 | + | + | – | – |
| 35 | + | + | – | – |
| 70 | + | + | – | – |
| Hemoglobin (mg/dL) | ||||
| 0 | + | + | – | – |
| 756 | + | + | – | – |
| 1,890 | + | + | – | – |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | ||||
| 0 | + | + | – | – |
| 1,538 | + | + | – | – |
| 3,845 | + | + | – | – |
aPositive and negative control samples were tested following introduction of increasing interferent.
bThe presence of a line indicates positive reactivity and is denoted by “+,” whereas nonreactivity is denoted by “–.”
Clinical Performance of the Truvian Easy Check COVID-19 IgM/IgG Test Devicea
| Test | Prepandemic | PCR-Positive | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-6 d | 7-13 d | ≥14 d | |||||
| No Disease | Disease | Disease | Disease | ||||
| Truvian Ab positive | 1 | 17 | 16 | 57 | |||
| Truvian Ab negative | 55 | 5 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Total | 56 | 22 | 18 | 59 | |||
|
|
| ( |
| ( |
|
| |
| Sensitivity (%) | 77.27 | (54.63-92.18) | 88.89 | (65.29-98.62) | 96.61 | (88.29-99.59) | |
| Specificity (%) | 98.21 | (90.45-99.95) | 98.21 | (90.45-99.95) | 98.21 | (90.45-99.95) | |
| Disease prevalence (%) | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | ||||
| Positive predictive value (%) | 69.49 | (24.37-94.15) | 72.37 | (27.17-94.85) | 74.01 | (28.98-95.21) | |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 98.80 | (97.43-99.44) | 99.41 | (97.85-99.84) | 99.82 | (99.30-99.95) | |
| Accuracy (%) | 97.17 | (90.64-99.60) | 97.75 | (91.26-99.80) | 98.13 | (93.67-99.75) |
Ab, antibody; CI, confidence interval; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
aA total of 155 clinical samples consisting of 99 PCR-confirmed, SARS-CoV-2-positive patient sera samples from 2020 and 56 prepandemic patient sera samples from 2015 were used to evaluate the point-of-care testing performance of the Easy Check device.
Effect of Prevalence on Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), and Overall Accuracy
| Prevalence (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 74.01a | 99.82 | 98.13 |
| 10 | 85.74 | 99.62 | 98.05 |
| 20 | 93.12 | 99.14 | 97.89 |
aAt 5% prevalence, if the sensitivity is 100%, the PPV increases to only 75%.
Calculations assume a sensitivity of 96.61% and a specificity of 98.21%.