Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 1;24(5):427-433.
doi: 10.34172/aim.2021.61.

Analysis of Nucleic Acid and Antibody Detection Results for SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Affiliations
Free article

Analysis of Nucleic Acid and Antibody Detection Results for SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Juanjuan Chen et al. Arch Iran Med. .
Free article

Abstract

Background: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of virus nucleic acid test (NAT) has become the standard method to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, there are still many limitations, especially the problem of the high false negative rate. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 NAT and evaluate the diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibody detection in novel coronavirus infection.

Methods: A total of 10309 suspected or high-risk cases of infection with SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan Hubei, China, were tested for virus NAT by RT-PCR. Among those cases, 762 COVID-19 patients and 143 patients with non-COVID-19 who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG during the NAT period were screened. The difference between the two test methods was analyzed using the chi-square test.

Results: The positive rate of 10309 cases was about 36% (95% CI: 33.39%-39.67%). SARS-CoV-2 was present in various types of specimens, and alveolar lavage fluid had the highest positive rate [52.38% (95% CI: 31.02-73.74)]. The clinical sensitivity of serum SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG was 77.17% (588/762) and 94.88% (723/762), respectively, and the clinical specificity was 93.71% (134/143) and 90.21% (129/143). The area under the curve (AUC) of SARS-CoV-2 IgG and combination of IgG with IgM were equally larger than IgM [0.973 (95% CI: 0.964-0.983) vs 0.930 (95% CI: 0.910-0.949)]. IgG antibody had the highest specificity [100.0% (95% CI: 100.00%-100.00%)] and sensitivity [94.0% (95% CI: 92.45%-95.55%)] when detected alone or in combination with IgM antibody. The total coincidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection and SARS-CoV-2 NAT for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 92.04% (833/905). Among the 34 SARS-CoV-2 NAT-negative patients with clinical symptoms and CT imaging features, 29 (85.29%) patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgM, and 31 (91.76%) were positive for IgG.

Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 NAT should be considered for many types of specimens, and the combined test of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG can make up for the problem of missed NAT in COVID-19 patients.

Keywords: Antibody; COVID-19; Detection; Nucleic acid; SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types