1
|
Comparative Performance of Latest-Generation and FDA-Cleared Serology Tests for the Diagnosis of Chagas Disease. J Clin Microbiol 2021; 59:JCM.00158-21. [PMID: 33762363 DOI: 10.1128/jcm.00158-21] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Accepted: 03/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Confirmed diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease (CD) requires positive results by two different IgG serology tests. Variable sensitivity has been reported among tests and in different geographic regions. Inadequate specificity presents a particular challenge in low-prevalence settings such as the United States. This study provides a direct comparison of the latest-generation IgG serology assays with four previously assessed FDA-cleared tests. Seven hundred ten blood donor plasma specimens were evaluated by Wiener Lisado and Wiener v.4.0 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and Abbott PRISM Chagas chemiluminescent assay (ChLIA). Sensitivity and specificity were assessed relative to infection status as determined by the original blood donation testing algorithm. All three latest-generation assays demonstrated 100% specificity (95% confidence interval [CI], 98.6 to 100.0). Wiener Lisado, Wiener v.4.0, and Abbott PRISM had sensitivities of 97.1% (95% CI, 95.1 to 98.4), 98.9% (95% CI, 97.4 to 99.6), and 95.5% (95% CI, 93.2 to 97.3), respectively. As with previously evaluated FDA-cleared tests, all three assays had the highest reactivity and sensitivity in samples from donors born in South America and lowest reactivity and sensitivity in specimens from those born in Mexico, with intermediate results in specimens from Central American donors. Wiener v.4.0 had the highest diagnostic sensitivity in all comparisons. Our findings suggest that the latest-generation CD serology tests could improve diagnostic sensitivity without affecting specificity.
Collapse
|
2
|
Allen JWL, Verkerke H, Owens J, Saeedi B, Boyer D, Shin S, Roback JD, Neish AS, Stowell SR. Serum pooling for rapid expansion of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing capacity. Transfus Clin Biol 2020; 28:51-54. [PMID: 33096207 PMCID: PMC7575425 DOI: 10.1016/j.tracli.2020.10.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
Objectives Examine possible pooling strategies designed to expand SARS-CoV-2 serological testing capacity. Methods Negative pools were assessed to determine optimal optical density (OD) cutoffs, followed by spiking weak or strong positive samples to assess initial assay performance. Samples were then randomly subjected to pool and individual testing approaches. Results Single positive specimens consistently converted pools of 5, 10, or 20 into positive outcomes. However, weaker IgG-positive samples failed to similarly convert pools of 50 to a positive result. In contrast, a stronger individual positive sample converted all pools tested into positive outcomes. Finally, examination of 150 samples configured into pools of 5, 10, 20 or 50 accurately predicted the presence of positive or negative specimens within each pool. Conclusions These results suggest that pooling strategies may allow expansion of serological testing capacity. While limitations exist, such strategies may aid in large-scale epidemiological screening or identification of optimal convalescent plasma donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J W L Allen
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Center for Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapies, Emory University School of Medicine, 201, Dowman Dr, 30322 Atlanta, GA, United States; Department of Pathology, Joint Program in Transfusion Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 630D New Research Building, 02115 Boston, MA, United States
| | - H Verkerke
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Center for Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapies, Emory University School of Medicine, 201, Dowman Dr, 30322 Atlanta, GA, United States; Department of Pathology, Joint Program in Transfusion Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 630D New Research Building, 02115 Boston, MA, United States
| | - J Owens
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Center for Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapies, Emory University School of Medicine, 201, Dowman Dr, 30322 Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - B Saeedi
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Center for Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapies, Emory University School of Medicine, 201, Dowman Dr, 30322 Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - D Boyer
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Center for Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapies, Emory University School of Medicine, 201, Dowman Dr, 30322 Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - S Shin
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Center for Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapies, Emory University School of Medicine, 201, Dowman Dr, 30322 Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - J D Roback
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Center for Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapies, Emory University School of Medicine, 201, Dowman Dr, 30322 Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - A S Neish
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Center for Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapies, Emory University School of Medicine, 201, Dowman Dr, 30322 Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - S R Stowell
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Center for Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapies, Emory University School of Medicine, 201, Dowman Dr, 30322 Atlanta, GA, United States; Department of Pathology, Joint Program in Transfusion Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 630D New Research Building, 02115 Boston, MA, United States.
| |
Collapse
|