-
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are antibodies with two binding sites directed at two different antigens or two different epitopes on the same antigen. The clinical...
Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are antibodies with two binding sites directed at two different antigens or two different epitopes on the same antigen. The clinical therapeutic effects of BsAbs are superior to those of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), with broad applications for tumor immunotherapy as well as for the treatment of other diseases. Recently, with progress in antibody or protein engineering and recombinant DNA technology, various platforms for generating different types of BsAbs based on novel strategies, for various uses, have been established. More than 30 mature commercial technology platforms have been used to create and develop BsAbs based on the heterologous recombination of heavy chains and matching of light chains. The detailed mechanisms of clinical/therapeutic action have been demonstrated with these different types of BsAbs. Three kinds of BsAbs have received market approval, and more than 110 types of BsAbs are at various stages of clinical trials. In this paper, we elaborate on the classic platforms, mechanisms, and applications of BsAbs. We hope that this review can stimulate new ideas for the development of BsAbs and improve current clinical strategies.
Topics: Animals; Antibodies, Bispecific; Antibody Specificity; Binding Sites, Antibody; Biotechnology; Drug Design; Epitopes; Humans; Immunotherapy; Protein Engineering; Recombinant Proteins; Translational Research, Biomedical
PubMed: 34025638
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.626616 -
F1000Research 2021Mass testing and adequate management are essential to terminate the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This testing is due to the possibility of...
Mass testing and adequate management are essential to terminate the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This testing is due to the possibility of unidentified cases, especially ones without COVID-19 related symptoms. This review aimed to examine the outcome of the existing studies on the ways of identifying COVID-19 cases, and determine the populations at risk, symptom and diagnostic test management of COVID-19. The articles reviewed were scientific publications on the PubMed, Science Direct, ProQuest, and Scopus databases. The keywords used to obtain the data were COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and case detection, case management or diagnostic test. We applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Population, Intervention, Control and Outcomes (PICO) approaches. A total of 21 articles from 13 countries met the inclusion criteria and were further analyzed qualitatively. However, 62% of the articles used a rapid antibody test for screening rather than a rapid antigen test. According to the rapid antigen test, 51.3% were positive, with men aged above 50 years recording the highest number of cases. Furthermore, 57.1% of patients were symptomatic, while diagnostic tests' sensitivity and specificity increased to 100% in 14 days after the onset. : Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is recommended by the World Health Organization for detection of COVID-19. Suppose it is unavailable, the rapid antigen test is used as an alternative rather than the rapid antibody test. Diagnosis is expected to be confirmed using the PCR and serological assay to achieve an early diagnosis of COVID-19, according to disease progression, gradual rapid tests can be used, such as rapid antigen in an earlier week and antibody tests confirmed by RT-PCR and serological assay in the second week of COVID-19.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Humans; Male; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 35719313
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.50929.3 -
Archives of Medical Science : AMS 2022The rapid transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires a fast, accurate, and affordable detection method. Despite doubts of their diagnostic accuracy,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The rapid transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires a fast, accurate, and affordable detection method. Despite doubts of their diagnostic accuracy, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are used worldwide due to their practicality. This systematic review aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based RDTs in detecting COVID-19.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A literature search was carried out on five journal databases using the PRISMA-P 2015 method. We included all studies published up to February 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. Data regarding peer-review status, study design, test kit information, immunoglobulin class, target antigen, and the number of samples were extracted and tabulated. We estimated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. The pooled data results showed that the combined detection method of IgM or IgG had the highest sensitivity and NPV, which were 73.41% (95% CI: 72.22-74.57) and 75.34% (95% CI: 74.51-76.16), respectively. The single IgG detection method had the highest specificity and PPV of 96.68% (95% CI: 96.25-97.07) and 95.97% (95% CI: 95.47-96.42%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Antibody-based RDTs are not satisfactory as primary diagnostic tests but have utility as a screening tool.
PubMed: 35832707
DOI: 10.5114/aoms/135910 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Mar 2021Most of national schistosomiasis elimination programmes in Asia are relying on stool examination, particularly Kato Katz stool examination technique for regular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Most of national schistosomiasis elimination programmes in Asia are relying on stool examination, particularly Kato Katz stool examination technique for regular transmission monitoring. However, the Kato-Katz technique has shown low sensitivity for the detection of light-intensity infections, and therefore highly sensitive diagnostic tools are urgently required to monitor prevalence of infection in low transmission settings. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and synthesize the performance of diagnostic tests for detecting Schistosoma japonicum and S. mekongi infection in people living in endemic areas.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
We comprehensively searched these nine electronic databases and other resources until July 2019, with no language or publication limits: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, BIOSIS Citation Index, HTA, CINAHL PLUS, The Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO. We included original studies that assessed diagnostic performance using antibody, antigen, and molecular tests with stool examination test as a reference standard. Two reviewers independently extracted a standard set of data and assessed study quality. We estimated the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for each index test. We used diagnostic odds ratio to determine the overall accuracy and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) curve to assess the index tests performance. Fifteen studies (S. japonicum [n = 13] and S. mekongi [n = 2]) testing 15,303 participants were included in the review. Five studies reported performance of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), seven studies reported indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), and four studies reported polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detecting S. japonicum. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.84-0.98) and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.29-0.53) for ELISA, 0.97 (95% CI: 0.90-0.99) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.58-0.73) for IHA, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.71-0.96) and 0.49 (95% CI: 0.29-0.69) for PCR respectively. A global summary indicated the best performance for IHA, closely followed by ELISA. We were unable to perform meta-analysis for S. mekongi due to insufficient number of studies.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE
IHA showed the highest detection accuracy for S. japonicum. Further studies are needed to determine the suitable diagnostic methods to verify the absence of transmission of S. mekongi and also to compare detection accuracy against more sensitive reference standards such as PCR.
Topics: Animals; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect; Humans; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Schistosoma; Schistosoma japonicum
PubMed: 33730048
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009244 -
PloS One 2021Increasingly, vaccine efficacy studies are being recommended in low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC), yet often facilities are unavailable to take and store infant...
BACKGROUND
Increasingly, vaccine efficacy studies are being recommended in low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC), yet often facilities are unavailable to take and store infant blood samples correctly. Dried blood spots (DBS), are useful for collecting blood from infants for diagnostic purposes, especially in low-income settings, as the amount of blood required is miniscule and no refrigeration is required. Little is known about their utility for antibody studies in children. This systematic review aims to investigate the correlation of antibody concentrations against infectious diseases in DBS in comparison to serum or plasma samples that might inform their use in vaccine clinical trials.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library for relevant studies between January 1990 to October 2020 with no language restriction, using PRISMA guidelines, investigating the correlation between antibody concentrations in DBS and serum or plasma samples, and the effect of storage temperature on DBS diagnostic performance. We included 40 studies in this systematic review. The antibody concentration in DBS and serum/plasma samples reported a good pooled correlation, (r2 = 0.86 (ranged 0.43 to 1.00)). Ten studies described a decline of antibody after 28 days at room temperature compared to optimal storage at -20°C, where antibodies were stable for up to 200 days. There were only five studies of anti-bacterial antibodies.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a good correlation between antibody concentrations in DBS and serum/plasma samples, supporting the wider use of DBS in vaccine and sero-epidemiological studies, but there is limited data on anti-bacterial antibodies. The correct storage of DBS is critical and may be a consideration for longer term storage.
Topics: Antibodies; Antibodies, Bacterial; Communicable Diseases; Dried Blood Spot Testing; Humans; Protein Stability; Sensitivity and Specificity; Temperature
PubMed: 33720928
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248218 -
International Journal of Rheumatic... May 2021To evaluate the diagnostic value of anti-citrullinated α-enolase peptide 1 (anti-CEP 1) antibody in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by conducting a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To evaluate the diagnostic value of anti-citrullinated α-enolase peptide 1 (anti-CEP 1) antibody in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies published until September 23, 2020. A bivariate mixed-effects model was used to calculate the diagnostic indices from primary data of eligible studies. We performed meta-regression and subgroup analysis to explore the sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles, with a total of 17 380 patients with RA and 7505 control participants, met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for the anti-CEP 1 antibody were 44% (95% CI: 38%-51%), 97% (95% CI: 96%-98%), and 14.81 (95% CI: 10.66-20.57) and 0.57 (95% CI: 0.52-0.64), respectively. The pooled positive and negative predictive values were 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.97) and 0.53 (95% CI: 0.43-0.63), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86. Meta-regression indicated that the anti-CEP 1 antibody detection method may be a source of heterogeneity. The subgroup analysis of the group in which the anti-CEP 1 antibody was detected by using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit had a sensitivity of 59% (95% CI: 50%-68%) and a specificity of 93% (95% CI: 85%-97%).
CONCLUSIONS
The anti-CEP 1 antibody had moderate RA diagnostic value with relatively low sensitivity and high specificity. An ELISA may increase the RA diagnostic sensitivity.
Topics: Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibodies; Antibodies; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biomarkers, Tumor; DNA-Binding Proteins; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Peptides, Cyclic; Phosphopyruvate Hydratase; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tumor Suppressor Proteins
PubMed: 33713557
DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.14093 -
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses Jul 2021The use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serological testing to diagnose acute infection or determine population seroprevalence relies on understanding assay... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serological testing to diagnose acute infection or determine population seroprevalence relies on understanding assay accuracy during early infection. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of serological testing in COVID-19 by providing summary sensitivity and specificity estimates with time from symptom onset.
METHODS
A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PubMed was performed up to May 13, 2020. All English language, original peer-reviewed publications reporting the diagnostic performance of serological testing vis-à-vis virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 599 unique publications. A total of 39 publications reporting 11 516 samples from 8872 human participants met eligibility criteria for inclusion in our study. Pooled percentages of IgM and IgG seroconversion by Day 7, 14, 21, 28 and after Day 28 were 37.5%, 73.3%, 81.3%, 72.3% and 73.3%, and 35.4%, 80.6%, 93.3%, 84.4% and 98.9%, respectively. By Day 21, summary estimate of IgM sensitivity was 0.872 (95% CI: 0.784-0.928) and specificity 0.973 (95% CI: 0.938-0.988), while IgG sensitivity was 0.913 (95% CI: 0.823-0.959) and specificity 0.960 (95% CI: 0.919-0.980). On meta-regression, IgM and IgG test accuracy was significantly higher at Day 14 using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) compared to other methods.
CONCLUSIONS
Serological assays offer imperfect sensitivity for the diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Estimates of population seroprevalence during or shortly after an outbreak will need to adjust for the delay between infection, symptom onset and seroconversion.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; COVID-19; COVID-19 Serological Testing; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Immunoglobulin M; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity; Seroconversion
PubMed: 33609075
DOI: 10.1111/irv.12841 -
International Journal of Infectious... Mar 2021The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating impact worldwide, and timely detection and quarantine of infected patients are critical to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating impact worldwide, and timely detection and quarantine of infected patients are critical to prevent spread of disease. Serological antibody testing is an important diagnostic method used increasingly in clinics, although its clinical application is still under investigation.
METHODS
A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the diagnostic performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody tests in patients with COVID-19. The test results analysed included: (1) IgM-positive but IgG-negative (IgMIgG); (2) IgG-positive but IgM-negative (IgGIgM); (3) both IgM-positive and IgG-positive (IgMIgG); (4) IgM-positive without IgG information (IgMIgG); (5) IgG-positive without IgM information (IgGIgM); (6) either IgM-positive or IgG-positive (IgM or IgG); and (7) IgA-positive (IgA).
RESULTS
Sixty-eight studies were included. Pooled sensitivities for IgMIgG, IgGIgM, IgMIgG, IgMIgG, IgGIgM, and IgM or IgG were 6%, 7%, 53%, 68%, 73% and 79% respectively. Pooled specificities ranged from 98% to 100%. IgA had a pooled sensitivity of 78% but a relatively low specificity of 88%. Tests conducted 2 weeks after symptom onset showed better diagnostic accuracy than tests conducted earlier. Chemiluminescence immunoassay and detection of S protein as the antigen could offer more accurate diagnostic results.
DISCUSSION
These findings support the supplemental role of serological antibody tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, their capacity to diagnose COVID-19 early in the disease course could be limited.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; COVID-19; COVID-19 Serological Testing; Humans; Immunoglobulin A; Immunoglobulin G; Immunoglobulin M; Luminescent Measurements; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity; Serologic Tests; Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
PubMed: 33450372
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.016 -
Scientific Reports Dec 2020Recombinant monoclonal antibodies are used for treating various diseases, from asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease to cancer. Although... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Recombinant monoclonal antibodies are used for treating various diseases, from asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease to cancer. Although monoclonal antibodies are known to have fewer toxic reactions compared with the conventional cytotoxic antineoplastic drugs, the cases of severe systemic hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) should be acknowledged. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the anti-IgE for galactose-α-1,3-galactose in patients with HSRs to cetuximab. We searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and World of Science databases to July 1st, 2020. We included a total of 6 studies, with 1074 patients. Meta-analysis was performed using bivariate analysis and the random-effect model. The pooled sensitivity was 73% (95% CI 62-81%) and the pooled specificity was 88% (95% CI 79-94%). We had not found significant heterogeneity and, despite some discrepancies in the nature of data available in the analysed studies, we draw the conclusion that the presence of cetuximab specific IgE (anti cetuximab antibody) and/or galactose-α-1,3-galactose shows moderate to high sensitivity and specificity of developing an HSR. More studies are needed to establish a protocol necessary for the proper prediction and avoidance of HSR related to cetuximab.
Topics: Cetuximab; Galactose; Humans; Immunoglobulin E
PubMed: 33288791
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-78497-7 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases May 2021Cryptosporidiosis is a common cause of diarrhoea in young children (aged younger than 24 months) in low-resource settings but is currently challenging to diagnose....
BACKGROUND
Cryptosporidiosis is a common cause of diarrhoea in young children (aged younger than 24 months) in low-resource settings but is currently challenging to diagnose. Light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy with auramine-phenol staining (LED-AP), recommended for tuberculosis testing, can also detect Cryptosporidium species. A lateral-flow test not requiring refrigerator storage (by contrast with most immunochromatographic lateral-flow assays) has also recently been developed for Cryptosporidium spp detection. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and operational feasibility of LED-AP and the lateral-flow test strip for cryptosporidiosis in children.
METHODS
We did a prospective diagnostic accuracy study in two health-care facilities in Ethiopia, in a consecutive series of children younger than 5 years of age with diarrhoea (three or more loose stools within the previous 24 h) or dysentery (at least one loose stool with stains of blood within the previous 24 h). Stool samples were tested for Cryptosporidium spp by LED-AP and the lateral-flow test strip; accuracy of each test was estimated by independent and blind comparison with a composite reference standard comprising quantitative immunofluorescent antibody test (qIFAT), ELISA, and quantitative PCR (qPCR). Quantitative cutoff values for diarrhoea-associated infection were established in an embedded case-control substudy, with cases of cryptosporidiosis coming from the 15 districts in and around Jimma and the eight districts surrounding Serbo, and community controls without diarrhoea in the previous 48 h recruited by weekly frequency matching by geographical district of the household, age group, and enrolment week.
FINDINGS
Stool samples from 912 children with diarrhoea or dysentery and 706 controls from the case-control substudy were tested between Dec 22, 2016, and July 6, 2018. Estimated reference-standard cutoff values for cryptosporidiosis positivity were 2·3 × 10 DNA copies per g of wet stool for qPCR, and 725 oocysts per g for qIFAT. LED-AP had a sensitivity for cryptosporidiosis of 88% (95% CI 79-94; 66 of 75 samples) and a specificity of 99% (98-99; 717 of 726 samples); the lateral-flow test strip had a sensitivity of 89% (79-94; 63 of 71 samples) and a specificity of 99% (97-99; 626 of 635 samples).
INTERPRETATION
LED-AP has high sensitivity and specificity for cryptosporidiosis and should be considered as a dual-use technology that can be easily integrated with existing laboratory infrastructures in low-resource settings. The lateral-flow test strip has similar sensitivity and specificity and provides an alternative that does not require microscopy, although purchase cost of the test strip is unknown as it is not yet available on the market.
FUNDING
Norwegian Research Council GLOBVAC fund, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Norwegian Society for Medical Microbiology, University of Bergen, and Vestfold Hospital Trust.
Topics: Child; Cryptosporidiosis; Cryptosporidium; Databases, Factual; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Diarrhea; Ethiopia; Feasibility Studies; Feces; Humans; Immunoassay; Prospective Studies; Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 33278916
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30556-9