Objectives

The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between the results of two serology assays for detection of COVID-19 among medical staff, who are at higher risks of infection.

Methods

The immunochromatography (ICG) rapid test kit and the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) quantitative antibody test were performed. The differences in IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays were descriptively analyzed.

Results

A total of 637 participants were included in this research. Two staff were IgM positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test (cutoff value: 10 AU/ml) of 51 staff who were IgM positive in the rapid test kit. Six staff were IgG positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test of 56 staff who were IgG positive in the rapid test kit.

The proportion of antibody positive staff differed greatly between the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test.

Conclusions

There was a vast difference in the proportions of IgG and IgM antibody positive staff in the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test results. The results from the only rapid test kit might have to be interpreted with caution. Further studies to evaluate antibody testing accuracy are required to promote the understanding of each assay's characteristics and determine their purposes in each community.

中文翻译：

---

COVID-19 不同血清学检测中 IgM 和 IgG 抗体流行率的差异；医护人员考试的教训

目标

本研究的目的是调查在感染风险较高的医务人员中检测 COVID-19 的两种血清学检测结果之间的差异。

方法

进行了免疫层析（ICG）快速检测试剂盒和化学发光免疫分析（CLIA）定量抗体检测。描述性分析了不同血清学检测中 IgM 和 IgG 抗体流行率的差异。

结果

共有 637 名参与者被纳入这项研究。在快速检测试剂盒中 IgM 阳性的 51 名工作人员的 CLIA 定量抗体测试（临界值：10 AU/ml）中，有两名工作人员 IgM 呈阳性。对快速检测试剂盒中 IgG 阳性的 56 名员工进行 CLIA 定量抗体检测，6 名员工 IgG 阳性。

快速检测试剂盒与CLIA抗体定量检测抗体阳性人员比例差异较大。

结论

快速检测试剂盒中IgG和IgM抗体阳性人员的比例与CLIA抗体定量检测结果存在巨大差异。可能必须谨慎解读唯一快速检测试剂盒的结果。需要进一步的研究来评估抗体检测的准确性，以促进对每种检测方法特征的理解，并确定它们在每个社区中的用途。