Combining RNA and antibody detections significantly improved the sensitivity of pathogenic diagnosis for COVID-19 in the early phase of infection. A higher titer of Ab was independently associated with a worse clinical classification. Abstract BackgroundThe novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerging virus. The antibody response in infected patient remains largely unknown, and the clinical values of antibody testing have not been fully demonstrated. MethodsA total of 173 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled. Their serial plasma samples (n=535) collected during the hospitalization were tested for total antibodies (Ab), IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2. The dynamics of antibodies with the disease progress was analyzed. ResultsAmong 173 patients, the seroconversion rate for Ab, IgM and IgG was 93.1%, 82.7% and 64.7%, respectively. The reason for the negative antibody findings in 12 patients might due to the lack of blood samples at the later stage of illness. The median seroconversion time for Ab, IgM and then IgG were day-11, day-12 and day-14, separately. The presence of antibodies was <40% among patients within 1-week since onset, and rapidly increased to 100.0% (Ab), 94.3% (IgM) and 79.8% (IgG) since day-15 after onset. In contrast, RNA detectability decreased from 66.7% (58/87) in samples collected before day-7 to 45.5% (25/55) during day 15-39. Combining RNA and antibody detections significantly improved the sensitivity of pathogenic diagnosis for COVID-19 (p<0.001), even in early phase of 1-week since onset (p=0.007). Moreover, a higher titer of Ab was independently associated with a worse clinical classification (p=0.006). ConclusionsThe antibody detection offers vital clinical information during the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The findings provide strong empirical support for the routine application of serological testing in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients.
a b s t r a c tAn outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and its caused coronavirus disease 2019 has been reported in China since December 2019. More than 16% of patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, and the fatality ratio was about 1%-2%. No specific treatment has been reported. Herein, we examine the effects of Favipiravir (FPV) versus Lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV) for the treatment of COVID-19. Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who received oral FPV (Day 1: 1600 mg twice daily; Days 2-14: 600 mg twice daily) plus interferon (IFN)-a by aerosol inhalation (5 million U twice daily) were included in the FPV arm of this study, whereas patients who were treated with LPV/RTV (Days 1-14: 400 mg/100 mg twice daily) plus IFN-a by aerosol inhalation (5 million U twice daily) were included in the control arm. Changes in chest computed tomography (CT), viral clearance, and drug safety were compared between the two groups. For the 35 patients enrolled in the FPV arm and the 45 patients in the control arm, all baseline characteristics were comparable between the two arms. A shorter viral clearance time was found for the FPV arm versus the control arm (median (interquartile range, IQR), 4 (2.5-9) d versus 11 (8-13) d, P < 0.001). The FPV arm also showed significant improvement in chest imaging compared with the control arm, with an improvement rate of 91.43% versus 62.22% (P = 0.004). After adjustment for potential confounders, the FPV arm also showed a significantly higher improvement rate in chest imaging. Multivariable Cox regression showed that FPV was independently associated with faster viral clearance. In addition, fewer adverse reactions were found in the FPV arm than in the control arm. In this open-label nonrandomized control study, FPV showed significantly better treatment effects on COVID-19 in terms of disease progression and viral clearance; if causal, these results should be important information for establishing standard treatment guidelines to combat the SARS-CoV-2 infection.
BackgroundThe novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is a newly emerging virus. The antibody response in infected patient remains largely unknown, and the clinical values of antibody testing have not been fully demonstrated. MethodsA total of 173 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled. Their serial plasma samples (n = 535) collected during the hospitalization period were tested for total antibodies (Ab), IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 using immunoassays. The dynamics of antibodies with the progress and severity of disease was analyzed. ResultsAmong 173 patients, the seroconversion rate for Ab, IgM and IgG was 93.1% (161/173), 82.7% (143/173) and 64.7% (112/173), respectively. Twelve patients who had not seroconverted were those only blood samples at the early stage of illness were collected.The seroconversion sequentially appeared for Ab, IgM and then IgG, with a median time of 11, 12 and 14 days, respectively. The presence of antibodies was < 40% among patients in the first 7 days of illness, and then rapidly increased to 100.0%, 94.3% and 79.8% for Ab, IgM and IgG respectively since day 15 after onset. In contrast, the positive rate of RNA decreased from 66.7% (58/87) in samples collected before day 7 to 45.5% (25/55) during days 15 to 39. Combining RNA and antibody detections significantly improved the sensitivity of pathogenic diagnosis for COVID-19 patients (p < 0.001), even in early phase of 1-week since onset (p = 0.007). Moreover, a higher titer of Ab was independently associated with a worse clinical classification (p = 0.006). ConclusionsThe antibody detection offers vital clinical information during the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The findings provide strong empirical support for the routine application of serological testing in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients.
Visit our website to listen:https://tools.cdc.gov/medialibrary/ index.aspx#/media/id/393805
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.