Antibody detection is essential to establish exposure, infection, and immunity to SARS-CoV-2, as well as to perform epidemiological studies. The worldwide urge for new diagnostic tools to control the pandemic has led to a quick incorporation in clinical practice of the recently developed serological assays. However, as only few comparative studies have been published, there is a lack of data about the diagnostic accuracy of currently available assays. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy to detect Ig G, Ig M+A, and/or IgA anti SARS-CoV-2 of 10 different assays: lateral flow card immunoassays, 4 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and 3 chemiluminescent particle immunoassays (CMIA). Using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for COVID-19 as gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were determined. Each assay was tested in 2 groups, namely, positive control, formed by 50 sera from 50 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with positive RT-PCR; and negative control, formed by 50 sera from 50 patients with respiratory infection non-COVID-19. Sensitivity range of the 10 assays evaluated for patients with positive COVID-19 RT-PCR was 40-77% (65-81% considering IgG plus IgM). Specificity ranged 83-100%. VPP and VPN were respectively 81-100% and 61.6-81%. Among the lateral flow immunoassays, the highest sensitivity and specificity results were found in Wondfo® SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test. ELISA IgG and IgA from EUROIMMUN® were the most sensitive ELISA. However, poor results were obtained for isolated detection of IgG. We found similar sensitivity for IgG with SARS-CoV-2 for Architect by Abbott® and ELISA by Vircell®. Results obtained varied widely among the assays evaluated. Due to a better specificity, overall diagnostic accuracy of the assays evaluated was higher in case of positive result. On the other side, lack of antibody detection should be taken with care because of the low sensitivity described. Highest diagnostic accuracy was obtained with ELISA and CMIAs, but they last much longer.

COVID-19 has overloaded national health services worldwide. Thus, early identification of patients at risk of poor outcomes is critical. Our objective was to analyse SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in serum as a severity biomarker in COVID-19. Retrospective observational study including 193 patients admitted for COVID-19. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in serum (viremia) was performed with samples collected at 48–72 h of admission by two techniques from Roche and Thermo Fischer Scientific (TFS). Main outcome variables were mortality and need for ICU admission during hospitalization for COVID-19. Viremia was detected in 50–60% of patients depending on technique. The correlation of Ct in serum between both techniques was good (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.612; p < 0.001). Patients with viremia were older (p = 0.006), had poorer baseline oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2; p < 0.001), more severe lymphopenia (p < 0.001) and higher LDH (p < 0.001), IL-6 (p = 0.021), C-reactive protein (CRP; p = 0.022) and procalcitonin (p = 0.002) serum levels. We defined "relevant viremia" when detection Ct was < 34 with Roche and < 31 for TFS. These thresholds had 95% sensitivity and 35% specificity. Relevant viremia predicted death during hospitalization (OR 9.2 [3.8–22.6] for Roche, OR 10.3 [3.6–29.3] for TFS; p < 0.001). Cox regression models, adjusted by age, sex and Charlson index, identified increased LDH serum levels and relevant viremia (HR = 9.87 [4.13–23.57] for TFS viremia and HR = 7.09 [3.3–14.82] for Roche viremia) as the best markers to predict mortality. Viremia assessment at admission is the most useful biomarker for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients. Viremia is highly reproducible with two different techniques (TFS and Roche), has a good consistency with other severity biomarkers for COVID-19 and better predictive accuracy.

Introduction Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing bacteria have been increasingly reported as causal agents of nosocomial infection worldwide. Resistance patterns vary internationally, and even locally, from one institution to the other. We investigated the clinical isolates positive for ESBL-producing bacteria in our institution, a tertiary care hospital in Madrid (Spain), during a 2-year period (2007–2008). Methods Clinical and microbiological data were retrospectively reviewed. Two hundred and nineteen patients were included in the study. Results Advanced age, diabetes, use of catheters, previous hospitalization and previous antibiotic treatment were some of the risk factors found among patients. Escherichia coli was the most frequent isolate, and urinary tract the most common site of isolation. Internal Medicine, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and General Surgery presented the highest number of isolates. There were no outbreaks during the study period. Antibiotic patterns showed high resistance rates to quinolones in all isolates. There was 100% sensitivity to carbapenems. Conclusion Carbapenems continue to be the treatment of choice for ESBL-producing bacteria. Infection control measures are of great importance to avoid the spread of these nosocomial infections.

No abstract

Background: Plasmodium vivax malaria is characterized by the presence of dormant liver-stage parasites, called hypnozoites, which can cause malaria relapses after an initial attack. Primaquine, which targets liver hypnozoites, must be used in combination with a schizonticidal agent to get the radical cure. However, relapses can sometimes occur in spite of correct treatment, due to different factors such as a diminished metabolization of primaquine. Case presentation: In January 2019, a 21 years old woman with residence in Madrid, returning from a trip to Venezuela with clinical symptoms compatible with malaria infection, was diagnosed with vivax malaria. Chloroquine for 3 days plus primaquine for 14 days was the elected treatment. Two months later and after a second trip to Venezuela, the patient presented a second P. vivax infection, which was treated as the previous one. A third P. vivax malaria episode was diagnosed 2 months later, after returning from a trip to Morocco, receiving chloroquine for 3 days but increasing to 28 days the primaquine regimen, and with no more relapses after 6 months of follow up. The genotyping of P. vivax in the three malaria episodes revealed that the same strain was present in the different relapses. Upon confirmation of correct adherence to the treatment, non-description of resistance in the infection area and the highly unlikely re-infection on subsequent trips or stays in Spain, a possible metabolic failure was considered. CYP2D6 encodes the human cytochrome P450 isoenzyme 2D6 (CYP2D6), responsible for primaquine activation. The patient was found to have a CYP2D6*4/*1 genotype, which turns out in an intermediate metabolizer phenotype, which has been related to P. vivax relapses. Conclusions: The impairment in CYP2D6 enzyme could be the most likely cause of P. vivax relapses in this patient. This highlights the importance of considering the analysis of CYP2D6 gene polymorphisms in cases of P. vivax relapses after a correct treatment and, especially, it should be considered in any study of dosage and duration of primaquine treatment.