These data suggest that antibiotic prophylaxis does not reduce the overall incidence of urinary tract infection in children with low grade vesicoureteral reflux. However, such a strategy may prevent further urinary tract infection in boys with grade III reflux.
The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread worldwide. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies plays an important role in understanding and controlling the pandemics, notably through epidemiological surveillance. Well validated and highly specific SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are urgently needed. We describe here the analytical and clinical performance of VIDAS® SARS-CoV-2 IgM and VIDAS® SARS-CoV-2 IgG, two CE-marked, EUA-authorized, automated, qualitative assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG, respectively. Both assays showed high within-run and within-laboratory precision (coefficients of variation < 11.0%) and very low cross-reactivity towards sera of patients with a past common coronavirus or respiratory virus infection. Clinical specificity determined on up to 989 pre-pandemic healthy donors was ≥ 99% with a narrow 95% confidence interval for both IgM and IgG assays. Clinical sensitivity was determined on up to 232 samples from 130 RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients. The positive percent agreement (PPA) with SARS-CoV-2 PCR reached 100% at ≥ 16 days (VIDAS® SARS-CoV-2 IgM) and ≥ 32 days (VIDAS® SARS-CoV-2 IgG) of symptom onset. Combined IgM/IgG test results improved the PPA compared to each test alone. SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroconversion followed closely that of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and remained stable over time, while SARS-CoV-2 IgM levels rapidly declined. Interestingly, SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG responses were significantly higher in COVID-19 hospitalized vs. non-hospitalized patients. Altogether, the VIDAS® SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG assays are highly specific and sensitive serological tests suitable for the reliable detection of past acute SARS-CoV-2 infections.
The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread worldwide. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies plays an important role in understanding and controlling the pandemics, notably through epidemiological surveillance. Well validated and highly specific SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are urgently needed. We describe here the analytical and clinical performance of VIDAS® SARS-CoV-2 IgM and VIDAS® SARS-CoV-2 IgG, two CE-marked, EUA-authorized, automated, qualitative assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG, respectively. Both assays showed high within-run and within-laboratory precision (coefficients of variation < 11.0%) and very low cross-reactivity towards sera of patients with a past common coronavirus or respiratory virus infection. Clinical specificity determined on up to 989 pre-pandemic healthy donors was ≥ 99% with a narrow 95% confidence interval for both IgM and IgG assays. Clinical sensitivity was determined on up to 232 samples from 130 RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients. The positive percent agreement (PPA) with SARS-CoV-2 PCR reached 100% at ≥ 16 days (VIDAS® SARS-CoV-2 IgM) and ≥ 32 days (VIDAS® SARS-CoV-2 IgG) of symptom onset. Combined IgM/IgG test results improved the PPA compared to each test alone. SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroconversion followed closely that of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and remained stable over time, while SARS-CoV-2 IgM levels rapidly declined. Interestingly, SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG responses were significantly higher in COVID-19 hospitalized vs. non-hospitalized patients. Altogether, the VIDAS® SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG assays are highly specific and sensitive serological tests suitable for the reliable monitoring of past SARS-CoV-2 infections and for seroepidemiology investigations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.