Guo C-C, Mi J-Q, Nie H
Department of Pathology, Department of Nuclear Medicine; The First Affiliated Hospital, and College of Clinical Medicine of Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang, China.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020 Oct;24(19):10208-10218. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202010_23243.
Currently, detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is standard in the diagnosis of COVID-19 (2019-nCoV). However, reliable and rapid serological diagnostic methods to screen SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, including those who do not have overt symptoms, are urgently needed. Most studies have described serological tests based on the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG. Here, we attempted to systematically analyze the positive rates and comprehensive diagnostic efficacy of IgM and IgG in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
By systematically searching PubMed, medRxiv, bioRxiv and other databases, studies regarding the detection of peripheral blood IgM and/or IgG related to SARS-CoV-2 were collected. The positive rate, sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), area under the curve (AUC) and corresponding 95% CIs were obtained by weighted quantitative mergence, and the source of heterogeneity was explored by performing a subgroup study and sensitivity analysis.
A total of 30 studies were included, which were comprised of 3856 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive cases, 368 suspected RNA negative cases, 1167 asymptomatic carriers, and 2526 RNA negative controls. The corresponding meta-analysis showed that in confirmed cases with 2019-nCoV, the positive rates of single IgM, single IgG and their joint detection related to SARS-CoV-2 were 61.2% (95% CI: 53.4%-69.0%), 58.8% (95% CI: 49.6%-68.0%) and 62.1% (52.7%-71.4%), respectively. In suspected RNA negative cases, the positive rates of single IgM, single IgG and their joint detection were 29.0% (95% CI: 14.0%-44.0%), 37.0% (95% CI: 20.0%-55.0%) and 55.0% (95% CI: 19.0%-90.0%), respectively. Interestingly, IgM/IgG detection also demonstrated a positive rate of 19% (95% CI: 10.0%-27.0%) in asymptomatic cases. Using RT-PCR test as reference, the AUCs of IgM, IgG and IgM/IgG in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV infection were 0.9656, 0.9766, and 0.9838, respectively. The stratified analyses showed that among confirmed cases with 2019-nCoV, the positive rates of IgM and IgG were 27.3% (95%CI: 19.8%-34.8%) and 22.3% (95% CI: 11.3%-33.3%), respectively, 0-7days following the onset of symptoms, whereas the positive rate of parallel IgM/IgG testing attained 39.3% (95% CI: 24.2%-54.4%). Moreover, the efficacy of antibody testing based on CLIA (chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays) in diagnosing 2019-nCoV infection was higher than that of LFIA (lateral flow immunoassays) and ELISA (enzyme linked immunosorbent assay).
IgM, IgG and their joint testing exhibited high clinical value in the diagnosis of 2019-nCoV, which may assist in making up for the deficiency of throat swab RNA tests.
目前,SARS-CoV-2 RNA检测是COVID-19(2019-nCoV)诊断的标准方法。然而,迫切需要可靠且快速的血清学诊断方法来筛查SARS-CoV-2感染患者,包括那些没有明显症状的患者。大多数研究描述了基于检测SARS-CoV-2特异性IgM和IgG的血清学检测方法。在此,我们试图系统分析IgM和IgG对SARS-CoV-2感染的阳性率及综合诊断效能。
通过系统检索PubMed、medRxiv、bioRxiv等数据库,收集有关检测外周血中与SARS-CoV-2相关的IgM和/或IgG的研究。通过加权定量合并获得阳性率、敏感度(SEN)、特异度(SPE)、曲线下面积(AUC)及相应的95%置信区间(CI),并通过亚组研究和敏感度分析探索异质性来源。
共纳入30项研究,包括3856例确诊的SARS-CoV-2 RNA阳性病例、368例疑似RNA阴性病例、1167例无症状携带者和2526例RNA阴性对照。相应的荟萃分析表明,在2019-nCoV确诊病例中,与SARS-CoV-2相关的单一IgM、单一IgG及其联合检测的阳性率分别为61.2%(95%CI:53.4%-69.0%)、58.8%(95%CI:49.6%-68.0%)和62.1%(52.7%-71.4%)。在疑似RNA阴性病例中,单一IgM、单一IgG及其联合检测的阳性率分别为29.0%(95%CI:14.0%-44.0%)、37.0%(95%CI:20.0%-55.0%)和55.0%(95%CI:19.0%-90.0%)。有趣的是,IgM/IgG检测在无症状病例中的阳性率也达19%(95%CI:10.0%-27.0%)。以RT-PCR检测为参照,IgM、IgG及IgM/IgG诊断2019-nCoV感染的AUC分别为0.9656、0.9766和0.9838。分层分析显示,在2019-nCoV确诊病例中,症状出现后0-7天,IgM和IgG的阳性率分别为27.3%(95%CI:19.8%-34.8%)和22.3%(95%CI:11.3%-33.3%),而IgM/IgG平行检测的阳性率达39.3%(95%CI:24.2%-54.4%)。此外,基于化学发光酶免疫分析(CLIA)的抗体检测诊断2019-nCoV感染的效能高于侧向流动免疫分析(LFIA)和酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)。
IgM、IgG及其联合检测在2019-nCoV诊断中具有较高的临床价值,可能有助于弥补咽拭子RNA检测的不足。