Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Filters applied. Clear all
. 2020 Feb 27;10.1002/jmv.25727.
doi: 10.1002/jmv.25727. Online ahead of print.

Development and Clinical Application of a Rapid IgM-IgG Combined Antibody Test for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Diagnosis

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Development and Clinical Application of a Rapid IgM-IgG Combined Antibody Test for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Diagnosis

Zhengtu Li et al. J Med Virol. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) quickly spread all over China and to more than 20 other countries. Although the virus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus [SARS-Cov-2]) nucleic acid real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test has become the standard method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, these real-time PCR test kits have many limitations. In addition, high false-negative rates were reported. There is an urgent need for an accurate and rapid test method to quickly identify a large number of infected patients and asymptomatic carriers to prevent virus transmission and assure timely treatment of patients. We have developed a rapid and simple point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay that can detect immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies simultaneously against SARS-CoV-2 virus in human blood within 15 minutes which can detect patients at different infection stages. With this test kit, we carried out clinical studies to validate its clinical efficacy uses. The clinical detection sensitivity and specificity of this test were measured using blood samples collected from 397 PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients and 128 negative patients at eight different clinical sites. The overall testing sensitivity was 88.66% and specificity was 90.63%. In addition, we evaluated clinical diagnosis results obtained from different types of venous and fingerstick blood samples. The results indicated great detection consistency among samples from fingerstick blood, serum and plasma of venous blood. The IgM-IgG combined assay has better utility and sensitivity compared with a single IgM or IgG test. It can be used for the rapid screening of SARS-CoV-2 carriers, symptomatic or asymptomatic, in hospitals, clinics, and test laboratories.

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2 virus infection; fingerstick blood; lateral flow immunoassay; point-of-care testing; rapid IgM-IgG combined test.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic illustration of rapid SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM‐IgG combined antibody test. A, Schematic diagram of the detection device; B, an illustration of different testing results; C, means control line; G, means IgG line; M, means IgM line. IgG, immunoglobulin G; IgM, immunoglobulin M; SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
Figure 2
Figure 2
Representative photo for different patient blood testing results. (#13) Both IgM and IgG positive, (#14) IgM weak positive, (#15) Both IgM and IgG negative, (#16) IgG weak positive, (#17) IgG positive, and (#18) IgM positive. IgG, immunoglobulin G; IgM, immunoglobulin M

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 15 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. WHO . Novel coronavirus—China. http://wwwwhoint/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/. Accessed January 12, 2020.
    1. Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:727‐733. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ksiazek TG, Erdman D, Goldsmith CS, et al. A novel coronavirus associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(20):1953‐1966. - PubMed
    1. Kuiken T, Fouchier RA, Schutten M, et al. Newly discovered coronavirus as the primary cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Lancet. 2003;362(9380):263‐270. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zaki AM, van Boheemen S, Bestebroer TM, Osterhaus AD, Fouchier RA. Isolation of a novel coronavirus from a man with pneumonia in Saudi Arabia. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(19):1814‐1820. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback