Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T06:46:41.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diagnostic value of using a combination of nucleic acid and specific antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 in coronavirus disease 2019

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2021

Kaochang Zhao Open the ORCID record for Kaochang Zhao [Opens in a new window] ,
Li Ai ,
Yang Zhao ,
Tao Wang ,
Zhishui Zheng ,
Shaolin Zeng ,
Xuhong Ding ,
Suping Hu  and
Hanxiang Nie
Kaochang Zhao
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory & Critical Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan430060, China
Li Ai
Affiliation:
Department of Nephrology, the Third People's Hospital of Hubei Province, Wuhan430033, China
Yang Zhao
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory & Critical Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan430060, China
Tao Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory & Critical Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan430060, China
Zhishui Zheng
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory & Critical Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan430060, China
Shaolin Zeng
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory & Critical Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan430060, China
Xuhong Ding
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory & Critical Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan430060, China
Suping Hu
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory & Critical Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan430060, China
Hanxiang Nie*
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory & Critical Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan430060, China
*
Author for correspondence: Hanxiang Nie, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged disease with various clinical manifestations and imaging features. The diagnosis of COVID-19 depends on a positive nucleic acid amplification test by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, the clinical manifestations and imaging features of COVID-19 are non-specific, and nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2 can have false-negative results. It is presently believed that detection of specific antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is an effective screening and diagnostic indicator for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Thus, a combination of nucleic acid and specific antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 will be more effective to diagnose COVID-19, especially to exclude suspected cases.

Keywords

AntibodyCOVID-19nucleic acidSARS-CoV-2
Type
Review
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 149 , 2021 , e62
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Background

Since 8 December 2019, an increasing number of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported in Wuhan, China [Reference Huang1–Reference Lu, Stratton and Tang3]. After the recognition of COVID-19, there has been an exponential rise in the number of cases in more than 195 countries worldwide [4]. The causative pathogen has been confirmed as a novel enveloped RNA betacoronavirus [Reference Lu5] that is now known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is phylogenetically related to the SARS-CoV [Reference Li6]. Accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential for preventing virus transmission and assuring timely treatment of patients. Patients with epidemiological contact history, severe acute respiratory infection and no other aetiology that fully explains the clinical presentation can be diagnosed as suspected COVID-19 [7]. The clinical manifestations and imaging features of COVID-19 are often non-specific, therefore making it difficult to distinguish between COVID-19 and other types of pneumonia just based on these features [Reference Chen8]. Consequently, patients with other respiratory pathogen infection may be misdiagnosed as suspected cases of COVID-19. According to World Health Organisation (WHO) interim guidance, the COVID-19 must be confirmed by detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid via real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) [7]. However, nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2 can have false-negative results due to various reasons. Therefore, it is challenging to confirm or exclude coronavirus infection in those suspected cases. Antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been reported as an important mean to assist nucleic acid diagnosis and rapid screening [Reference Li9]. In this mini-review, we aimed to describe the value of a combined examination of nucleic acid and specific antibody for SARS-CoV-2 in the diagnosis of COVID-19, particularly those suspected cases.

Nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2

The viral nucleic acid test on respiratory specimens using RT-PCR assay is considered as the gold standard in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and is also used as an indicator for isolating, discharging and transferring patients diagnosed with COVID-19 [7, Reference Jin10, Reference Cheng11]. Therefore, the nucleic acid test is widely adopted to confirm the diagnosis of suspected cases in clinical practice [12]. However, negative results cannot rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly among those who have epidemiological contact history [Reference Pan13]. Meanwhile, high false-negative results have been reported and the confirmed positive ratio of nucleic acid detection for SARS-CoV-2 was only about 50% [Reference Liu14, Reference Xie15]. A scoping review reported that the sensitivity of RT-PCR ranged from 57.9% to 94.6% [Reference Axell-House16]. In particular, nucleic acid tests are subjected to many limitations. First, the detection rate of nucleic acid test varies among different sample types. For example, viral RNA can be present in upper respiratory tract, lower respiratory tract, stool, blood and urine of COVID-19 patients [Reference Yan, Chang and Wang17], yet not all tissues may be tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR [Reference Xie15]. Secondly, nucleic acid tests require adequate facilities and instruments, appropriate biosafety measures and skilled laboratory technicians, all of which lead to a significant cost for the test [Reference Rashid18, Reference Liu19]. Thirdly, inappropriate sample collection, storage, transportation, extraction and amplification can all cause false-negative results [Reference Rashid18]. Fourthly, the quality and sensitivity of detection kits produced by different companies can greatly affect the detection accuracy [Reference Pan13]. Lastly, different stages of infection in patients [Reference Zou20] along with patients’ history of receiving anti-viral medication (such as anti-HIV drugs) may significantly affect the viral load and even reduce the load to an undetectable level [Reference Pan13]. All these limitations can compromise the accuracy of the nucleic acid test and make it difficult to obtain reliable diagnosis of COVID-19 if using nucleic acid detection alone.

Antibody detection for SARS-CoV-2

Rapid detection of antibodies is widely used in identification of the causative viral pathogens of respiratory tract viral infections [Reference Zhang21]. It was reported that IgM antibody could be detected in patient's serum 3−6 days post-infection and IgG could be detected 8 days post-infection for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus [Reference Lee22, Reference Yue, Xin and Ge23]. With respect to 2003 SARS virus, it has been shown that specific IgM antibody persists until 2-week post infection, after which its level starts to decrease and eventually disappears [Reference Lee22]. This permits a sufficient window of time for reliable detection of the specific antibodies to SARS-CoV, therefore making this test an effective screening and diagnostic indicator for SARS infection [Reference Yue, Xin and Ge23]. Given that SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the coronavirus family, the detection of specific antibody for SARS-CoV-2 can serve as an indication of infection [Reference Zhao24]. It has been shown that the antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in the middle and later stage of the illness [Reference Xiang25]. Additionally, several studies [Reference Guo26, Reference Zhang27] have reported that IgM antibodies can appear as early as on the 5th day after symptom onset, peak on the 12th day and then drop slowly, while IgG antibodies are detected around 14 days after symptom onset, reach peak concentrations after day 20, and decrease around the 28th day [Reference Xiang25]. A previous study demonstrated that the titre of IgM antibody is usually low, and that IgM antibody only lasts for a short time [Reference Zhang28]. As a result, sampling time is critical for accurate assessment of IgM levels [Reference Kontou29]. To circumvent this, repetitive testing (5–7 days interval) can be used to monitor the progression of IgM levels. Further, measurement of IgG in combination with IgM can also facilitate the evaluation of disease progression as the production of IgG usually indicates middle or later stage of infection [Reference Zhang28]. This is particularly helpful because IgG antibodies show higher titre, last longer and are easier to be detected by immunoassays due to their higher affinity [Reference Zhang28]. It is worth noting that because of the long-lasting nature of IgG, pre-existing IgG produced from past infections may complicate the interpretation of the test results of the current diseases. However, it is suggested that an increased IgG titre in convalescent serum of four-fold or higher as compared to that in the acute phase usually reflects a recent infection. Otherwise, a previous infection should be considered [Reference Rashid18]. Taken together, high level of IgM antibodies may suggest acute phase of infection, whereas under-detection or low levels of IgM antibodies along with simultaneously rising levels of IgG may suggest middle and later stages of infection.

It has been shown that testing for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 provides more clinical value in the diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 patients that have tested negative by other molecular methods [Reference Theel30]. However, these specific antibodies can be detected in patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 regardless of having symptoms or not, patients who have already recovered from COVID-19, and healthy individuals who have received vaccination [Reference Ravi31–Reference Lee33]. Therefore, monitoring the dynamics of the antibodies, rather than testing their presence or absence, is more critical for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. The levels of specific antibodies vary during different courses of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and can be used to indicate disease progression. As we have mentioned above, it has been shown that high levels of IgM antibodies or an increased IgG titre in convalescent serum that is four-fold or higher relative to that in the acute phase, usually reflects a recent infection [Reference Rashid18]. Otherwise, a previous infection should be considered [Reference Rashid18]. Consequently, repetitive antibody testing in suspected COVID-19 patients can be used to monitor the seroconversion and/or progression of the antibodies and can provide the most convincing serological evidence to distinguish different disease states. The sensitivity for both IgM and IgG tests ranges between 72.7% and 100%, while the specificity of these tests range between 98.7% and 100%, especially for patients whose disease course lasts ⩾13 days from the disease onset [Reference Rashid18, Reference Jin34]. Further, as compared to the nucleic acid test, the detection of antibody assays are often faster, less expensive, easy-to-use and accessible to staff without laboratory training [Reference Li9]. Collectively, antibody detection can be used as a powerful testing method in the diagnosis of COVID-19 to complement the viral nucleic acid assays.

The human immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood. Further, it remains unclear when the levels of specific IgG and IgM antibodies against this virus peak during the course of the disease. This causes several limitations for the utility of antibody for SARS-CoV-2 test. Firstly, false-negative results of the antibody test may result from poor sample quality, low antibody concentrations, individual variations in antibody production and most importantly, inappropriate sampling time. For example, if the antibody test is performed too soon or too late during the course of infection, the antibodies may not have risen to a sufficient level for detection or may have already decreased to an under detection level [Reference Li9, Reference Sethuraman, Jeremiah and Ryo35]. Secondly, cross-reactivity of antibody to non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus proteins may lead to false-positive result [Reference Cheng11]. Therefore, it is critical to combine multiple testing methods to obtain accurate and reliable diagnosis of COVID-19.

Antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been developed rapidly under urgent market demands. The common immunoassay methods used for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection include enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA), fluorescence immunoassays (FIA) and lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) using immunochromatography [7, Reference Du36, Reference Xiao, Gao and Zhang37]. These assays detect IgG and/or IgM antibodies [Reference Lou38, Reference Zhang39] against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) proteins and/or against the nucleocapsid (N) phosphoproteins of the virus in human sera/blood samples and have different sensitivity and specificity. While all display high specificity, ELISA and CLIA-based methods perform better in terms of sensitivity (90–94%) as compared to those using LFIA and FIA which show sensitivities ranging from 80% to 89% [Reference Kontou29]. With regard to sensitivity, assays targeting the S antigen appear more sensitive than N antigen-based tests as shown in a meta-analysis of 38 studies [Reference Kontou29]. Further, the sensitivities of antibody tests measuring different immunoglobins can be affected by multiple factors, including the timing when the tests are performed. For example, IgG tests exhibit higher sensitivity than IgM tests when the samples were taken longer than 14 days after the onset of symptoms [Reference Xiang25, Reference Kontou29]. Therefore, it is recommended to use a combined IgG/IgM test as it performs better in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody alone. A simultaneous detection of both IgM and IgG antibodies can be used to identify the stage of the infection and determine the immune status of the individuals [Reference Zhang28]. Antibody detection is of great significance for patients who are negative for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids, especially for those with an exposure history regardless of whether they present symptoms or not [Reference He40]. Moreover, antibody tests are relatively cheap and quick as compared to other tests, thus permitting rapid large-scale screening at points of care (POC) [Reference Kontou29]. Further, antibody tests can be used to understand the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and to assist in determining the level of humoral immunity in patients [Reference Zhao41]. Considering the performance characteristics of every method, a combined IgG/IgM ELISA or CLIA test may be a better and safer choice for individual at this stage of the pandemic [Reference Kontou29]. LFIA tests on the other hand are particularly attractive for large seroprevalence studies and can be used as POC tests [Reference Kontou29]. Future studies comparing the sensitivity and specificity of different assays using larger sample size will shed light on the optimal ways to administer antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

Case reports of bacterial pneumonia misdiagnosed as suspected COVID-19: role of a combination of nucleic acid and specific antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2

As mentioned above, both nucleic acid test and antibody detection methods are critical in the diagnosis of individuals suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, false-negative results from nucleic acid testing have been increasingly reported whereas antibody test alone cannot confirm or exclude diagnosis. Therefore, a combination of nucleic acid and specific antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 maybe more effective to diagnose COVID-19 [Reference Mlcochova42], especially for the suspected cases. Here, we present two cases which were initially diagnosed as suspected COVID-19, but finally ruled out by using a combination of nucleic acid and specific antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2.

Case 1

In February 2020, a 23-year-old woman presented to her doctor with a 8-day history of fever, non-productive cough and dyspnoea. She did not have chest pain, chills or weight loss, but experienced dyspnoea after exercise. Her body temperature was as high as above 40 °C. The laboratory test showed that her blood leucocyte count was 5810/mm3 with a differential count of 73.6% neutrophils. Her chest computed tomography (CT) scan, performed on 18 February 2020, from another hospital, showed ground glass opacity and consolidation in the right upper lobe of the lung (Fig. 1a, b). She lived in Wuhan city for extended periods of time. The patient was initially diagnosed as suspected COVID-19 and was administered with Moxifloxacin hydrochloride tablets (400 mg/day) and Lianhua Qingwen capsules (a kind of Chinese patent medicine, 12 capsules/day) for six days. However, her symptoms were not improved after the treatment. The patient presented breathlessness on exertion and was then transferred to our hospital, a designated hospital to treat patients with COVID-19. Her family history and previous medical history were unremarkable. At admission, the patient's temperature was 38.6 °C, heart rate was 108 beats per min (bpm), blood pressure, 120/80 mmHg and respiratory frequency, 18 breaths/min. Physical examination of the chest revealed exaggerated breath-sounds on the right upper chest, but without wheezes or moist rales. Blood routine examination and procalcitonin (PCT) exhibited normal. Two haemocultures and two sputum cultures were negative for microorganisms. Serologic tests for respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, parainfluenza virus, Epstein−Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydia pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila were negative. Nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected twice from the patient (24-h interval) to perform nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2 and both were negative. Meanwhile, serum-specific IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were screened for twice by a SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) kit against S protein and N protein antigen, respectively (Yahuilong Biotechnology, Shenzhen, China, lot number: 20200101) and the results were all negative. The patient was quarantined in single room and was treated with intravenous cefoperazone-sulbactam (6 g/day) and moxifloxacin (400 mg/day). Her symptoms and her chest CT scan showed significant improvement after 1 week of treatment (Fig. 1c, d). The patient was thus diagnosed as bacterial pneumonia and had recovered from the treatment.

Fig. 1. Chest CT of case 1 obtained on 18 February 2020 showing ground glass opacity (a, red arrow) and consolidation (a, b, yellow arrow) in right upper lobe of lung. Chest CT of case 1 obtained on 2 March 2020 showing significant improvement after 1 week' treatment (c, d). Chest CT of case 2 obtained on 10 February 2020 showing ground glass opacity in right lower of lung (e, blue arrow). Chest CT of case 2 obtained on 23 February 2020 showing normal after 10 days of treatment (g, h).

Case 2

On 10 February 2020, a 30-year-old woman complained of fever and productive cough for 3 days with unknown causes. She reported that she sometimes spat white sputum and did not have chest pain, chills or dyspnoea. Her highest body temperature was over 39 °C. Her chest CT scan showed ground glass opacity in right lower lobe of lung (Fig. 1e, f) but her blood routine examination was normal. She was treated with cefaclor capsules (1.5 g/day) for four days without relief of her symptoms before being admitted to our hospital as suspected case of COVID-19. She lived in Wuhan for a long time. Her previous medical history and family history was unremarkable. At admission, the patient's temperature was 39.4 °C, heart rate was 85 bpm, blood pressure, 115/65 mmHg and respiratory frequency, 16 breaths/min. Her lung breath sounded clear without wheezes or moist rales. The results of PCT and arterial blood gas analysis were normal. Her blood routine test at admission showed that blood leucocyte count was 5340/mm3 with a differential count of 76.8% neutrophils. Two haemocultures and two sputum cultures were negative, but sputum smears showed Gram-positive bacteria and leucocyte count >20/low-power microscope field. Serological test for influenza virus A and B, parainfluenza of type 1, 2 and 3, respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus, Mycoplasma pneumonia, Chlamydophila pneumonia, Legionella pneumophila and Q Rickettsia was performed and the results were all negative. The SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was tested twice from nasopharyngeal swab samples by real-time RT-PCR (24-h interval) and both were negative. Additionally, regarding her serum antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2, two independent tests for specific IgM and IgG antibodies were performed on a SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG CLIA kit (Yahuilong Biotechnology, Shenzhen, China, lot number: 20200101) and the levels were all negative. Specifically, her specific IgM antibody levels were 0.58 and 0.42 AU/ml (normal value <10 AU/ml), respectively, and her specific IgG antibody levels were 0.94 and 0.37 AU/ml (normal value <10 AU/ml), respectively. The patient was treated in our hospital with Moxifloxacin hydrochloride tablets (400 mg/day) and amoxicillin capsules (1.5 g/day) in isolation ward. Her symptoms were improved markedly in 5 days. The chest CT scan showed normal after 10 days of treatment (Fig. 1g, h). She had fully recovered and was discharged as bacterial pneumonia.

Both these patients presented fever and respiratory symptoms when admitted to our hospital. Their complete blood white-cell count was normal but their chest CT scan showed pulmonary infiltration. They were tested for common respiratory pathogens but the results were all negative. Both patients have been living in Wuhan for a long time. Given that their symptoms, chest imaging and lab tests results and residential history match the diagnostic criteria of suspected COVID-19 cases, these patients were initially diagnosed as suspected COVID-19 cases and were treated in isolated single room in our hospital to avoid cross infection. According to WHO interim guidance, the confirmed cases must have positive results of nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2 [7]. However, both patients were tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 through nucleic acid test twice. Meanwhile, serum-specific antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 were also performed twice and were all negative. Furthermore, they both recovered after antibiotic treatment. Therefore, our patients were finally diagnosed as bacterial pneumonia.

Conclusion

In conclusion, COVID-19 often exhibits non-specific clinical features and chest imaging appearances, which are difficult to be distinguished from many other infectious pulmonary disorders. As a result, bacterial pneumonia that causes pulmonary infiltration can be easily misdiagnosed as COVID-19 during the epidemic. Therefore, a combination of nucleic acid and specific antibodies tests will be helpful and critical for identifying confirmed COVID-19 patients and excluding suspected cases.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the patients involved in this study.

Financial support

This study was funded by a Key Project of Science and Technology on COVID-19 of Hubei Province (No. 2020FCA002).

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest are declared by the authors.

Data availability statement

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Footnotes

*

The authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Huang, C et al. (2020) Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet (London, England) 395, 497–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hui, DS et al. (2020) The continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health – the latest 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 91, 264–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, H, Stratton, CW and Tang, YW (2020) Outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, China: the mystery and the miracle. Journal of Medical Virology 92, 401–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO (2020) Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): situation report, 21. Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330990 (Accessed 1 April 2020).Google Scholar
Lu, R et al. (2020) Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet (London, England) 395, 565–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Q et al. (2020) Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia. The New England Journal of Medicine 382, 1199–1207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO (2020) Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection is suspected: interim guidance, 28 January 2020. Available at https://extranet.who.int/iris/restricted/handle/10665/33089 (Accessed 1 April 2020).Google Scholar
Chen, N et al. (2020) Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet (London, England) 395, 507–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, Z et al. (2020) Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. Journal of Medical Virology 92, 1518–1524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jin, YH et al. (2020) A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version). Military Medical Research 7, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, MP et al. (2020) Diagnostic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2: a narrative review. Annals of Internal Medicine 172, 726–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2020) Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in suspected human cases. Geneva. Interim guidance 19 March 2020. Available at https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance (Accessed 1 April 2020).Google Scholar
Pan, Y et al. (2020) Serological immunochromatographic approach in diagnosis with SARS-CoV-2 infected COVID-19 patients. The Journal of Infection 81, e28–e32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, R et al. (2020) Positive rate of RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 4880 cases from one hospital in Wuhan, China, from Jan to Feb 2020. Clinica Chimica Acta 505, 172–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, C et al. (2020) Comparison of different samples for 2019 novel coronavirus detection by nucleic acid amplification tests. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 93, 264–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Axell-House, DB et al. (2020) The estimation of diagnostic accuracy of tests for COVID-19: a scoping review. The Journal of Infection 81, 681–697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, Y, Chang, L and Wang, L (2020) Laboratory testing of SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCoV): current status, challenges, and countermeasures. Reviews in Medical Virology 30, e2106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rashid, ZZ et al. (2020) Diagnostic performance of COVID-19 serology assays. The Malaysian Journal of Pathology 42, 13–21.Google Scholar
Liu, Y et al. (2020) Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 20, 656–657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zou, L et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2 viral load in upper respiratory specimens of infected patients. The New England Journal of Medicine 382, 1177–1179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, N et al. (2020) Recent advances in the detection of respiratory virus infection in humans. Journal of Medical Virology 92, 408–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, HK et al. (2010) Production of specific antibodies against SARS-coronavirus nucleocapsid protein without cross reactivity with human coronaviruses 229E and OC43. Journal of Veterinary Science 11, 165–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yue, WZ, Xin, Z and Ge, YX (2003) IFA in testing specific antibody of SARS coronavirus. South China Journal of Prevention Medicine (Chinese) 29, 36–37.Google Scholar
Zhao, R et al. (2020) Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in COVID-19 patients as a serologic marker of infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases 71, 2066–2072.Google Scholar
Xiang, F et al. (2020) Antibody detection and dynamic characteristics in patients with COVID-19. Clinical Infectious Diseases 71, 1930–1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, L et al. (2020) Profiling early humoral response to diagnose novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Clinical Infectious Diseases 71, 778–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W et al. (2020) Molecular and serological investigation of 2019-nCoV infected patients: implication of multiple shedding routes. Emerging Microbes & Infections 9, 386–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, G et al. (2020) Longitudinal change of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibodies in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The Journal of Infectious Disease 222, 183–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kontou, PI et al. (2020) Antibody tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection: a meta-analysis. Diagnostics (Basel) 10, 319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theel, ES et al. (2020) The role of antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2: is there one? Journal of Clinical Microbiology 58, e00797-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravi, N et al. (2020) Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 detection: a comprehensive review of the FDA-EUA COVID-19 testing landscape. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 165, 112454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xia, S et al. (2021) Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, BBIBP-CorV: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 trial. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 21, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, YL et al. (2020) Dynamics of anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgM and IgG antibodies among COVID-19 patients. The Journal of Infection 81, e55–e58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jin, Y et al. (2020) Diagnostic value and dynamic variance of serum antibody in coronavirus disease 2019. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 94, 49–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sethuraman, N, Jeremiah, SS and Ryo, A (2020) Interpreting diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA 323, 2249–2251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Du, Z et al. (2020) Detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19. Journal of Medical Virology 92, 1735–1738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xiao, AT, Gao, C and Zhang, S (2020) Profile of specific antibodies to SARS-CoV-2: the first report. The Journal of Infection 81, 147–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lou, B et al. (2020) Serology characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection after exposure and post-symptom onset. The European Respiratory Journal 56, 2000763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, B et al. (2020) Immune phenotyping based on the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and IgG level predicts disease severity and outcome for patients with COVID-19. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 7, 157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, Y et al. (2020) Value of viral nucleic acid in sputum and feces and specific IgM/IgG in serum for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 10, 445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, J et al. (2020) Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients of novel coronavirus disease 2019. Clinical Infectious Disease 71, 2027–2034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mlcochova, P et al. (2020) Combined point-of-care nucleic acid and antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 following emergence of D614G spike variant. Cell Reports Medicine 1, 100099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Chest CT of case 1 obtained on 18 February 2020 showing ground glass opacity (a, red arrow) and consolidation (a, b, yellow arrow) in right upper lobe of lung. Chest CT of case 1 obtained on 2 March 2020 showing significant improvement after 1 week' treatment (c, d). Chest CT of case 2 obtained on 10 February 2020 showing ground glass opacity in right lower of lung (e, blue arrow). Chest CT of case 2 obtained on 23 February 2020 showing normal after 10 days of treatment (g, h).