Coronavirus: US report identifies most accurate antibody tests

0
143


New research into existing coronavirus antibody testing found that at least eight in 14 had accuracy rates of over 95% and three over 99%, but doctors remain concerned there is still work to be done before we can count on them alone to revive the global economy.

There are dozens of tests sold in the United States by manufacturers, including some in China, that test the blood for antibodies that scientists say demonstrate immunity to COVID-19. But none have received FDA approval and there are more and more questions about their reliability.

Many report false positive results and it is unconfirmed that even when antibodies are precisely detected, they offer long-term immunity to the virus.

Two separate studies of 14 antibody tests performed by a team of 50 researchers working for the Covid Testing Project in San Francisco, which were partially funded by Mark Zuckerburg’s charity, the Chan Zuckerburg Biohub, and Others from Massachusetts General Hospital found that only three – of course, Biotech, Wondfo Biotech and one internally manufactured by the researchers – had an accuracy rate of over 99%.

The Sure Biotech test gave the most promising results with a specificity of 100%. The company has laboratories in Hong Kong, mainland China and the United States. The results of the study revealed that his test was even more accurate than he claims on his own website.

Others include tests for Bioperfctus, BioMedics, DecomBio, DeepBlue, Epitope ELISA, Innovita, Premier, UCP Bioscience and VivaDiag.

Eight out of 14 had an accuracy of more than 14%. The 12 tests studied by the Covid Testing Project were at least 84% specific. Data from the other two that were studied by the Massachusetts General Hospital has yet to be released, but the New York Times included them in a survey of 14 people this weekend.

Antibodies were most often found more than 20 days after the onset of symptoms in all tests

Antibodies were most often found more than 20 days after the onset of symptoms in all tests

A breakdown shows the prevalence of the two types of antibodies - IgM and IgG - in each of the tests and its evolution over time

A breakdown shows the prevalence of the two types of antibodies – IgM and IgG – in each of the tests and its evolution over time

A table of the researchers' study reveals the specificity of 12 tests which revealed that they varied from 84.3% to 100% to identify the COVID-19 antibodies

A table of the researchers’ study reveals the specificity of 12 tests which revealed that they varied from 84.3% to 100% to identify the COVID-19 antibodies

They took blood from 80 people known to be infected with the coronavirus, as well as 108 samples given before the pandemic and 52 samples from people with other viral infections, but tested negative for COVID-19.

A data table reveals that they ranged from 84% to 100% to identify the two types of antibodies that researchers want to see in order to detect immunity against coronaviruses.

ACCURACY OF THE TEST

These are the specificity percentages for each test in the detection of IgG and IgM antibodies;

Of course Biotech – 100%

Wondfo Biotech – 99.1%

Internal ELISA – 99.1%

UCP Bioscience – 98.1%

Prime Minister – 97.2%

Innovita – 96.3%

Bioperfctus – 95.2%

VivaDiag – 95%

ELISA epitope – 89.8%

DecomBio – 89.7%

BioMedomics – 86.9%

DeepBlue – 84.3%

Two other tests have been reviewed by Massachusetts General Hospital, but it is unclear which ones.

These researchers have yet to publish their results, but have been discussed by the New York Times.

Tests also varied when they detected antibodies among all samples.

In some, they did not appear for more than 20 days.

The research has not yet been peer reviewed.

Some researchers say that as long as the data is read correctly by well-trained scientists, it can be used as a tool to overcome the pandemic.

They present it as promising new information.

“There are several tests that seem reasonable and promising. This is reason for optimism, “said Dr. Alexander Marson, one of the project’s principal scientists.

Others, however, say that more work is needed before they can be lied to.

“These figures are simply unacceptable.

“The tone of the paper is: look at how good the tests are. But I’m looking at this data, and I don’t really see it, “said Scott Hensley, microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

He added: “If your kit contains 3% false positives, how do you interpret that? It’s basically impossible.

“If your kit contains 14% false positives, it’s useless. “

There remains the huge problem that it is not yet proven that the possession of antibodies gives a person immunity against the virus.

“It seems like all of a sudden everyone has decided that antibody tests are going to give them a great answer,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota.

“We sort of rely on these tests when they are not perfect.

Antibody tests are produced all over the world in a race to find one that is 100% reliable, although there is still no evidence that they provide immunity.

Antibody tests are being produced all over the world in a race to find one that is 100% reliable, although there is still no evidence that they provide immunity.

“And we still have a lot of susceptible people, so it’s a dangerous thing to rely heavily on them right now,” Saskia Popescu, epidemiologist at George Mason University, told The Times.

WHO: ANTIBODIES DO NOT GUARANTEE IMMUNITY

The World Health Organization issued a serious warning on Friday that healing a coronavirus does not necessarily give it immunity.

“Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for a” passport of immunity “or a” safe certificate “which would allow individuals to travel. or to return to work assuming they are protected from re-infection.

“There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and who have antibodies are protected from a second infection,” the organization wrote in a briefing on Friday.

Chile has announced that it will give citizens so-called immunity passports to try to get them back to work.

The WHO said it was premature.

“No study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection with this virus in humans,” he said.

Last week, a study of 3,000 people across New York State found that more than 21% of people tested in New York had antibodies.

The percentages were much lower in the more rural parts of the state, and the results reinforced Governor Cuomo’s plan to reopen parts of the northern state before New York.

Other states, where there are fewer COVID-19 cases, reopen without an antibody test plan.

The federal government has repeatedly said that the country is far from finding an antibody test reliable enough to reopen the economy.

They have yet to produce or distribute one on a large scale, and have instead decided to allow companies to sell their tests to the public without FDA approval.

He created the “Wild West” scenario which is currently taking place.

The World Health Organization issued a serious warning on Friday that healing a coronavirus does not necessarily give it immunity.

“Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for a” passport of immunity “or a” safe certificate “which would allow individuals to travel. or to return to work assuming they are protected from re-infection.

“There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and who have antibodies are protected from a second infection,” the organization wrote in a briefing on Friday.

Chile has announced that it will give citizens so-called immunity passports to try to get them back to work.

The WHO said it was premature.

“No study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection with this virus in humans,” he said.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here