ELISAs and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used for diagnosing dengue virus (DENV) infection. Using 138 single blood samples, we compared the ability to detect non-structural (NS)-1 antigen and anti-DENV IgM/IgG antibodies among (1) DENV Detect NS1 ELISA, DENV Detect IgM capture ELISA and DENV Detect IgG ELISA (InBios International, Inc.); (2) Anti-Dengue virus IgM Human ELISA and Anti-Dengue virus IgG Human ELISA (Abcam); (3) Dengue virus NS1 ELISA, Anti-Dengue virus ELISA (IgM) and Anti-Dengue virus ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun); (4) Asan Easy Test Dengue NS1 Ag 100 and Asan Easy Test Dengue IgG/IgM (Asan Pharm); (5) SD BIOLINE Dengue Duo (Standard Diagnostics); and (6) Ichroma Dengue NS1 and Ichroma Dengue IgG/IgM (Boditech Med). For NS1 antigen detection, InBios and Euroimmun showed higher sensitivities (100%) than the RDTs (42.9–64.3%). All tests demonstrated variable sensitivities for IgM (38.1–90.5%) and IgG (65.7–100.0%). InBios and Boditech Med demonstrated higher sensitivity (95.6% and 88.2%, respectively) than the other tests for combined NS1 antigen and IgM antibody. Five NS1 antigen tests had good agreement (92.8–98.6%) without showing positivity for chikungunya. However, all IgG tests demonstrated potential false-positivity with variable ranges. Clinical laboratories should note performance variations across tests and potential cross-reactivity.
Background/AimDecreased Natural killer cell activity (NKA) for interferon-gamma production (NKA-IFNγ) has been reported in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of NKA-IFNγ for gastric cancer (GC).ResultsNKA-IFNγ levels were decreased in 261 GC patients with all stages of tumor compared to those in 48 healthy donors (P < 0.001), and lower levels of NKA-IFNγ were associated with higher GC stages. NKA-IFNγ levels were also associated with clinicopathological parameters including tumor size, depth of invasion, and lymph node metastasis. NKA-INFγ assay had better diagnostic value (AUC = 0.822) compared to serum CEA (0.624) or CA19-9 assay (0.566) (P < 0.001). Using different cut-off levels, serum CEA and CA19-9 showed sensitivities of 6.1-14.2% and 4.2-28.0%, respectively, which were much lower than that of NKA-IFNγ (55.6-66.7%).MethodsThis study included 261 patients with newly diagnosed GC and 48 healthy donors. NKA for IFNγ was determined by enzyme immunoassay after incubation of whole blood, and diagnostic performance was evaluated.ConclusionsNK cell activities for IFNγ production could be used as a supportive non-invasive tumor marker for GC diagnosis.
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have high clinical utility in managing the pandemic. We compared antibody responses and seroconversion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients using different immunoassays.Methods: We evaluated 12 commercial immunoassays, including three automated chemiluminescent immunoassays (Abbott, Roche, and Siemens), three enzyme immunoassays (Bio-Rad, Euroimmun, and Vircell), five lateral flow immunoassays (Boditech Med, SD biosensor, PCL, Sugentech, and Rapigen), and one surrogate neutralizing antibody assay (GenScript) in sequential samples from 49 COVID-19 patients and 10 seroconversion panels.Results: The positive percent agreement (PPA) of assays for a COVID-19 diagnosis ranged from 84.0% to 98.5% for all samples ( > 14 days after symptom onset), with IgM or IgA assays showing higher PPAs. Seroconversion responses varied across the assay type and disease severity. Assays targeting the spike or receptor-binding domain protein showed a tendency for early seroconversion detection and higher index values in patients with severe disease. Index values from SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody assays (three automated assays, one LFIA, and three EIAs) showed moderate to strong correlations with the neutralizing antibody percentage (r = 0.517-0.874), and stronger correlations in patients with severe disease and in assays targeting spike protein. Agreement among the 12 assays was good (74.3%-96.4%) for detecting IgG or total antibodies. Conclusions: Positivity rates and seroconversion of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies vary depending on the assay kits, disease severity, and antigen target. This study contributes to a better understanding of antibody response in symptomatic COVID-19 patients using currently available assays.
Although cytomegalovirus (CMV) specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) has been suggested as a predictive marker for CMV infection, proper CMI monitoring strategy in CMV-seropositive recipients and optimal method are not defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate two interferon gamma release assays during early post-transplant period as a predictor of the development of CMV infection in CMV-seropositive patients. A total of 124 CMV-seropositive recipients who received kidney transplantation from CMV-seropositive donor were prospectively examined. At pre-transplant and post-transplant 1 and 3 months, CMV-CMIs were tested using QuantiFERON-CMV assay (QF-CMV) and CMV specific T cell ELISPOT against CMV pp65 and IE-1 antigens (pp65-ELISPOT, IE-1-ELISPOT). CMV DNAemia occurred in 16 (12.9%) patients within 3 months after transplant. Post-transplant pp65 or IE-1 ELISPOT response, but not QF-CMV, was significantly associated with CMV DNAemia. The pp65 ELISPOT (cut-off; 30 spots/200,000 cells) and IE-1 ELISPOT (10 spots/200,000 cells) at post-transplant 1 month predicted the risk of post-transplant CMV DNAemia (P = 0.019). Negative predictive values (NPV) for protection from CMV DNAemia in case of positive ELISPOT results were 94.5% (95% CI: 86.9–97.8%) and 97.6% (95% CI: 86.3–99.6%) in pp65-ELISPOT and IE-1-ELISPOT assays, respectively. These results suggest that the variability may exist between CMV ELISPOT assays and QF-CMV, and CMV ELISPOT at post-transplant 1 month can identify the risk of CMV DNAemia in seropositive kidney transplant recipients.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.