Performance evaluation of five ELISA kits for detecting anti-SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies

Objectives: To evaluate and compare the performances of five commercial ELISA assays (EDI, AnshLabs, Dia.Pro, NovaTec, and Lionex) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. / Methods: Seventy negative control samples (collected before the COVID-19 pandemic) and samples from 101 RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected at different time points from symptom onset: ≤7, 8–14 and >14 days) were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity, agreement, and positive and negative predictive values of each assay with RT-PCR. A concordance assessment between the five assays was also conducted. Cross-reactivity with other HCoV, non-HCoV respiratory viruses, non-respiratory viruses, and nuclear antigens was investigated. / Results: Lionex showed the highest specificity (98.6%; 95% CI 92.3–99.8), followed by EDI and Dia.Pro (97.1%; 95% CI 90.2–99.2), NovaTec (85.7%; 95% CI 75.7–92.1), then AnshLabs (75.7%; 95% CI 64.5–84.2). All ELISA kits cross-reacted with one anti-MERS IgG-positive sample, except Lionex. The sensitivity was low during the early stages of the disease but improved over time. After 14 days from symptom onset, Lionex and NovaTec showed the highest sensitivity at 87.9% (95% CI 72.7–95.2) and 86.4% (95% CI 78.5–91.7), respectively. The agreement with RT-PCR results based on Cohen's kappa was as follows: Lionex (0.89) > NovaTec (0.70) > Dia.Pro (0.69) > AnshLabs (0.63) > EDI (0.55). / Conclusion: The Lionex and NovaLisa IgG ELISA kits, demonstrated the best overall performance

Gendered dimensions of obesity in childhood and adolescence

BACKGROUND: The literature on childhood and adolescent obesity is vast. In addition to producing a general overview, this paper aims to highlight gender differences or similarities, an area which has tended not to be the principal focus of this literature. METHODS: Databases were searched using the terms 'obesity' and 'child', 'adolescent', 'teenager', 'youth', 'young people', 'sex', 'gender', 'masculine', 'feminine', 'male', 'female', 'boy' and 'girl' (or variations on these terms). In order to limit the potential literature, the main focus is on other reviews, both general and relating to specific aspects of obesity. RESULTS: The findings of genetic studies are similar for males and females, and differences in obesity rates as defined by body mass index are generally small and inconsistent. However, differences between males and females due to biology are evident in the patterning of body fat, the fat levels at which health risks become apparent, levels of resting energy expenditure and energy requirements, ability to engage in certain physical activities and the consequences of obesity for the female reproductive system. Differences due to society or culture include food choices and dietary concerns, overall physical activity levels, body satisfaction and the long-term psychosocial consequences of childhood and adolescent obesity. CONCLUSION: This review suggests differences between males and females in exposure and vulnerability to obesogenic environments, the consequences of child and adolescent obesity, and responses to interventions for the condition. A clearer focus on gender differences is required among both researchers and policy makers within this field

Analytic comparison between three high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays reveals minor discrepancies in a high-incidence population

Performance of three automated commercial serological IgG-based assays was investigated for assessing SARS-CoV-2 "ever" (past or current) infection in a population-based sample in a high exposure setting. PCR and serological testing was performed on 394 individuals. SARS-CoV-2-IgG seroprevalence was 42.9% (95% CI 38.1-47.8%), 40.6% (95% CI 35.9-45.5%), and 42.4% (95% CI 37.6-47.3%) using the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. Between the three assays, overall, positive, and negative percent agreements ranged between 93.2-95.7%, 89.3-92.8%, and 93.8-97.8%, respectively; Cohen's kappa statistic ranged from 0.86 to 0.91; and 35 specimens (8.9%) showed discordant results. Among all individuals, 12.5% (95% CI 9.6-16.1%) had current infection, as assessed by PCR. Of these, only 34.7% (95% CI 22.9-48.7%) were seropositive by at least one assay. A total of 216 individuals (54.8%; 95% CI 49.9-59.7%) had evidence of ever infection using antibody testing and/or PCR during or prior to this study. Of these, only 78.2%, 74.1%, and 77.3% were seropositive in the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. All three assays had comparable performance and excellent agreement, but missed at least 20% of individuals with past or current infection. Commercial antibody assays can substantially underestimate ever infection, more so when infection rates are high