No abstract

To assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA) of four different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or clinical defined (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection respectively). Methods. 119 serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the groups: (1) Group with SARS-CoV-2 infection [n=82; RT-qPCR positive (definite, n=70), and probable (n=12)]; (2) other diseases [n= 27; other viruses identified (n=8), SARS of other etiologies (n=19)]; (3) healthy control group (n=10). LFA essays of four manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavírus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and one Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co, China). Results. The four tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95%CI, 77.26-93.11%); specificity (100%; 90.51-100%); DOR (257; 60-1008); LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85); LR− (0.13; 0.08 - 0.23); accuracy (90.76%; 84.06- 95.29%); Matthews Correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values. Conclusion. Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the manufacturers. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics, but should be used as additional screening tool.

Background. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA) of four different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or clinical defined (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection respectively). Methods. 119 serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the groups: (1) Group with SARS-CoV-2 infection [n=82; RT-qPCR positive (definite, n=70), and probable (n=12)]; (2) other diseases [n= 27; other viruses identified (n=8), SARS of other etiologies (n=19)]; (3) healthy control group (n=10). LFA essays of four manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavírus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and one Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co, China).Results. The four tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95%CI, 77.26-93.11%); specificity (100%; 90.51-100%); DOR (257; 60-1008); LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85); LR− (0.13; 0.08 - 0.23); accuracy (90.76%; 84.06- 95.29%); Matthews Correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values.Conclusion. Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the manufacturers. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics, but should be used as additional screening tool.

Background. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA) of four different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or clinical defined (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection respectively). Methods. 119 serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the groups: (1) Group with SARS-CoV-2 infection [n=82; RT-qPCR positive (definite, n=70), and probable (n=12)]; (2) other diseases [n= 27; other viruses identified (n=8), SARS of other etiologies (n=19)]; (3) healthy control group (n=10). LFA essays of four manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavírus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and one Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co, China).Results. The four tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95%CI, 77.26-93.11%); specificity (100%; 90.51-100%); DOR (257; 60-1008); LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85); LR− (0.13; 0.08 - 0.23); accuracy (90.76%; 84.06- 95.29%); Matthews Correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values.Conclusion. Our data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the manufacturers. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics, but should be used as additional screening tool.

Conducted the experiments, Acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; GG: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; SMR: Conception and design of the study, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; SMdA: Conception and design of the study, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; LAP: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; IR: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; BMC: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; FBM: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; CLTD: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; GRdAT: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; RCRC: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; BSS: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; LB: Collection of samples and conduction of the experiments; Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; JCdO: Conduction of the experiments, Analysis and interpretation of data, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; DA: Conduction of the experiments, Analysis and interpretation of data, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; DFG: Conduction of the experiments, Analysis and interpretation of data, Participated in Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; ACB: Conduction of the experiments, Analysis and interpretation of data, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; RW: Conduction of the experiments, Analysis and interpretation of data, Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; JMA: Acquisition and organization of clinical data from medical records; RdSP: Acquisition and organization of clinical data from medical records; VJWB: Acquisition and organization of clinical data from medical records; BMMdA: Participated in writing the paper and its critical review; MBN: Conception and design of the study, Conducted the experiments, Acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, Writing the paper and its critical, Study supervisor.

No abstract

Background This study is aimed at calculating the IgA antibody dynamic range in healthcare workers (HCWs) after immunization with CoronaVac® and Comirnaty® booster dose. Methods A total of 118 HCW serum samples from Southern Brazil were collected the day before the first vaccine dose (day 0) and + 20, + 40, + 110, + 200 days following the vaccine’s first dose, and + 15 days after a Comirnaty® booster dose. Immunoglobulin A (IgA) was quantified using immunoassays for anti-S1 (spike) protein antibodies (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). Results Seroconversion for the S1 protein occurred in 75 (63.56%) and 115 (97.47%) HCWs by day + 40 and day + 15 after the booster dose, respectively. There was an absence of IgA antibodies after the booster dose in two (1.69%) HCWs undergoing biannual rituximab administration and one (0.85%) HCW for no apparent reason. Conclusion Complete vaccination showed a significant IgA antibody production response, and the booster dose considerably increased this response. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42770-023-00935-1.

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are the most prevalent diseases in children under 5 years old, and viruses are the leading cause. ARIs arise due to numerous factors, including age, contact with siblings or other children in daycare centers, and environmental pollution. Breastfeeding reportedly confers protection against ARIs through bioactive components related to mucous epithelial immunity. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and severity of viral ARIs in hospitalized children, together with the status and duration of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) and other associated factors. It comprised an epidemiological surveillance study to investigate respiratory viruses in hospitalized children, in which demographic and clinical data were collected. Overall, 279 patients were included, 190 (68%) had positive viral results, and 132 (47%) were exclusively breastfed. In an adjusted analysis, it was observed that older children, the parents' educational level, and the presence of chronic disease were significantly related to EBF for more than 6 months. No significant differences were observed in viral positivity and disease severity concerning EBF. Whereas the EBF status was associated with a positive rate of virus detection, the significance did not remain after adjustment, and it was not considered a protective factor against ARIs. On the other hand, young age and exposure to tobacco were confirmed as risk factors of frequency and severity, respectively. Such confounding factors can impact the analysis and should be considered in future studies.