Background: An Israeli national taskforce performed a multi-center clinical and analytical validation of seven serology assays to determine their utility and limitations for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Methods: Serology assays from Roche, Abbott, Diasorin, BioMerieux, Beckman-Coulter, Siemens, and Mt.-Sinai ELISA were included. Negative samples from 2391 individuals representative of the Israeli population, and 698 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive patients, collected between March and May 2020, were analyzed Findings: Immunoassays sensitivities between 81.5%-89.4% and specificities between 97.7%-100% resulted in a profound impact on the expected Positive Predictive Value (PPV) in low (<15%) prevalence scenarios. No meaningful increase was detected in the false positive rate in children compared to adults. A positive correlation between disease severity and antibody titers, and no decrease in antibody titers in the first 8 weeks after PCR positivity was observed. We identified a subgroup of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (~5% of patients), who remained seronegative across a wide range of antigens, isotypes, and technologies. Interpretation: wThe commercially available automated immunoassays exhibit significant differences in performance and expected PPV in low prevalence scenarios. The low false-positivity rate in under 20 0 s suggests that cross-reactive immunity from previous CoV strains is unlikely to explain the milder disease course in children. Finding no decrease in antibody titers in the first 8 weeks is in contrast to some reports of short half-life for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The~5% who were seronegative non-responders, using multiple

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is frequently interpreted as contrast‐induced AKI but may result from other insults. We aimed to determine the causal association of contrast material exposure and the incidence of AKI following pPCI using a control group of propensity score–matched patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction who were not exposed to contrast material.Methods and ResultsWe studied 2025 patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction who underwent pPCI and 1025 patients receiving fibrinolysis or no reperfusion who were not exposed to contrast material during the first 72 hours of hospital stay (control group). AKI was defined as creatinine of ≥0.5 mg/dL or >25% rise within 72 hours. AKI rates were similar in the pPCI and control groups (10.3% versus 12.1%, respectively; P=0.38). Propensity score matching resulted in 931 matched pairs with PCI and no PCI, with balanced baseline covariates (standardized difference <0.1). Among propensity score–matched patients, AKI rates were not significantly different with and without PCI (8.6% versus 10.9%, P=0.12). In the pPCI cohort, independent predictors of AKI included age ≥70 years, insulin‐treated diabetes mellitus, diuretic therapy, anterior infarction, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, and variables related to the presence of pump failure (higher Killip class, intra‐aortic balloon pump use) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction but not contrast material dose. A risk score based on the PCI cohort had similar discriminatory capacity for AKI in the control group (C statistic 0.81±0.02 and 0.78±0.02, respectively; P=0.26).ConclusionsThe development of AKI in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pPCI is mainly related to older age, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, heart failure, and hemodynamic instability. Risk for AKI is similar among ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients with and without contrast material exposure.