4.7 Review

Potential false-positive reasons for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and its solution

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 93, Issue 7, Pages 4242-4246

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26937

Keywords

antibody; COVID-19; exogenous interference; false positive; intrinsic interference; SARS-CoV-2

Categories

Funding

  1. key project of provincial ministry co-construction, Health science and Technology project plan of Zhejiang Province [WKJ-ZJ-2128]
  2. Key Laboratory of Women's Reproductive Health Research of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, P.R. China [ZDFY2020-RH-0006]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The false-positive detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in clinical practice is mainly caused by endogenous interference factors like rheumatoid factor and heterophile antibodies, as well as exogenous interference factors including incomplete coagulation of the specimen and contamination of the specimen. These interferences can lead to confusion in the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has brought a huge impact on global health and the economy. Early diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is essential for epidemic prevention and control. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is an important criterion for diagnosing COVID-19. However, SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing also has certain false positives causing confusion in clinical diagnosis. This article summarizes the causes of false-positive detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in clinical practice. The results indicate that the most common endogenous interferences include rheumatoid factor, heterophile antibodies, human anti-animal antibodies, lysozyme, complement, and cross-antigens. The exogenous interference is mainly incomplete coagulation of the specimen, contamination of the specimen, and insufficient optimization of the diagnostic kit's reaction system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available