Validity of Chemiluminescent Immunoassay Serology Test for Anti-Sars Cov-2 Antibodies IgM and IgG 1

Authors

  • Museyaroh Museyaroh Department of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya
  • Puspa Wardhani Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya
  • Aryati Aryati Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24293/ijcpml.v28i1.1725

Keywords:

Antibody, IgM, IgG, CLIA

Abstract

In December 2019, an outbreak of acute pneumonia occurred in Wuhan, China. The disease was transmitted between humans through droplets (coughing or sneezing) of infected patients, causing this outbreak to spread rapidly in various countries in the world, including Indonesia. On February 11, 2020, WHO announced the pneumonia was caused by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), which was caused by a new type of Coronavirus, the SARS-CoV-2. A rapid and accurate diagnosis is critical for the control of the COVID-19 outbreak. The widely used test is a serology-based test that detects the  presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG antibodies in the patient's body. One of the methods used for this test is Chemiluminescent Immunoassay (CLIA). This study aimed to determine the reliability of CLIA. The study was conducted from August to September 2020. The number of samples was 63 patients' serum. Polymerase chain reaction examination at Husada Utama Hospital, Surabaya, revealed that 21 patients were confirmed positive for COVID-19 with positive PCR results, and 42 patients were healthy with negative COVID-19 results. The results showed that IgM had a diagnostic sensitivity of 85.7%, diagnostic specificity of 92.8%, a positive predictive value of 85.7%, a negative predictive value of 92.8%,
and accuracy of 90.4%. In comparison, IgG had a diagnostic sensitivity of 90.4%, diagnostic specificity of 90.4%, a positive predictive value of 82.6%, a negative predictive value of 90.5%, and accuracy of 90.4%. In conclusion, IgG has a higher sensitivity than IgM, while IgM had higher specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value than IgG. However, the positive, negative predictive value and efficiency values were the same for IgM and IgG.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Museyaroh Museyaroh, Department of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya

Department of Basic Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya

Puspa Wardhani, Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya

Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya

Aryati Aryati, Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya

Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga/Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital, Surabaya

References

Adhikari, Dacrema A, Bastoni D, Tinelli V, Demichele E, Mateo Ramos, et al. Epidemiology,

causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control of Coronavirus Disease

(COVID-19) during the early outbreak period: A scoping review. Journal of Infectious Diseases of

Poverty, 2020; 3(2): 4.

Susilo A, Martin Rumende, Ceva WP, Widayat Djoko Santoso, Mira Yulianti, et al. Coronavirus

disease 2019: Review of current literatures. Jurnal Penyakit Dalam Indonesia, 2019; 7(1): 45-47.

World Health Organization. Rational use of personal protective equipment for Coronavirus

Disease (COVID-19). Geneva, World Health Organization, 2020; 202.

Yu Han, Hailan Yang. The transmission and diagnosis of 2019 novel Coronavirus infection

disease (COVID-19): A Chinese perspective. J Med Virol, 2020; 92(6): 639-644.

í–ner í–zdemi. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Diagnosis and management. Erciyes Med J, 2020; 42(3): 242-7.

Li Z, Yi Y, Luo X, Xiong N, Liu Y, et al. Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM-IgG

combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. J Med Virol, 2020; 92(9): 1518–24.

Hoffman T, Nissen K, Krambrich J, Rönnberg B, Esmaeilzadeh M, et al. Evaluation of a COVID-19

IgM and IgG rapid test: An efficient tool for assessment of past exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Infect Ecol Epidemiol [Internet]. 2020; 10: 1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/20008686. 2020.1754538 (accessed October 12, 2020).

Zhang H, Penninger JM, Li Y, Zhong N, Slutsky AS. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a

SARS-CoV-2 receptor: Molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic target. Intensive Care

Med [Internet]. 2020; 46(4): 586–90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-

-9 (accessed 28 October, 2020).

Barbosa VA de F, Gomes JC, de Santana MA, de Lima CL, Calado RB, et al. COVID-19 rapid test by

combining a random forest based web system and blood tests. Clinical Infectious Disease, 2020; 2: 6.

Li X, Geng M, Peng Y, Meng L, Lu S. Molecular immune pathogenesis and diagnosis of COVID-19. J Pharm Anal [Internet]. 2020; 10(2): 1028. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpha.2020.03.001 (accessed September 28, 2020).

Thevarajan I, Nguyen THO, Koutsakos M, Druce J, Caly L, et al. Breadth of concomitant immune responses prior to patient recovery: A case report of non-severe COVID-19. Nat Med, 2020; 16: 1-3.

Long XY, Xiao-Jun Tang, Qiu-Lin Shi, Qin Li, Hai-Jun Deng, et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19. Nature Medicine, 2020; 26: 845-848. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0897-1 (accessed October , 2020).

Li Z, Yi Y, Luo X, Xiong N, Liu Y, et al. Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM-IgG

combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. J Med Virol, 2020; 92(9): 1518–24.

Downloads

Submitted

2020-11-04

Accepted

2021-02-23

Published

2021-12-15

How to Cite

[1]
Museyaroh, M., Wardhani, P. and Aryati, A. 2021. Validity of Chemiluminescent Immunoassay Serology Test for Anti-Sars Cov-2 Antibodies IgM and IgG 1. INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY AND MEDICAL LABORATORY. 28, 1 (Dec. 2021), 26–30. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24293/ijcpml.v28i1.1725.

Issue

Section

Articles