Antibody response and the clinical presentation of patients with COVID-19 in Croatia: the importance of a two-step testing approach

Rode, Oktavija Đaković; Kurolt, Ivan-Christian; Puljiz, Ivan; Čivljak, Rok; Balent, Nataša Cetinić; Laškaj, Renata; Tiljak, Mirjana Kujundžić; Mikulić, Radojka; Markotić, Alemka

doi:10.1007/s10096-020-04019-y

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The threshold duration of antibody detection was 7 days from the onset of disease with sensitivity and specificity of 71.11 and 57.14 respectively with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.704 with 95% CI (0.603-0.792). Similar findings regarding antibody detection after COVID-19 illness has been observed in other clinical studies by Rode etal 11 . Antibody dynamics due to variable antigen presentation may contribute to false positive or negative results and inconsistencies in seroprevalence studies 12 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Antibody Response to Covid-19 Infection- Clinical Variables at Play

Parkash

Singla

Bhatia

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe current COVID19 pandemic began in December 2019 and rapidly expanded to become a global pandemic. The COVID 19 presents multitude of clinical disorders, ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe disease, which can accompanied by multisystem failure leading to death. The immune response to SARS CoV 2 is understood to involve all the components of the system that together causes viral elimination and recovery from the infection. However, such immune responses implicated in the disease has varied presentation ranging from mild to a severe form, which appears to hinge on the loss of the immune regulation between protective and altered responses. In this study, we want to unravel this association of immune responses to various clinical variables, which might have a major role to play, while generating the immune response. The objective was to test this hypothesis in our settings and comparing the results of serologic tests from a group of COVID 19 patients and will analyzed the disease severity in comparison.MethodsTesting for SARS COV2 IgG Antibody was done with chemiluminescent assay on the Ortho Clinical Diagnostic’s (OCD) Vitros 5600 platform.ResultsA total of 106 COVID 19 patients were included in this study, of whom 61 were male and 45 were female. Their mean age was 43.7 years (range 17–83) and the median interval between initial symptom onset and sample collection was 12.33 days. Eighty patients (82%) had mild or moderate symptoms and twenty-six patients (18%) had severe symptoms. The antibody titers were positive in 99 patients (93%) and were found negative in 7 patients (7%). When comparing patients with mild/moderate symptoms and patients with severe/critical diseases, no statistically significant difference was observed between their gender ratios (P = 0.373) and age composition (P = 0.224).ConclusionsThe data presented in this research study did not find any statistical significance between SARS CoV 2 IgG antibody levels with COVID 19 disease severity, duration of symptoms, age, gender, and length of convalescence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Antibody Response to Covid-19 Infection- Clinical Variables at Play

Parkash

Singla

Bhatia

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results also showed that as expected the mean level of IgM is significantly lower in recovered subjects, which is in line with the studies conducted by Rode et al 18 and Di Giambenedetto et al, 19 stating that IgM is a more competent indicator of an acute immune response in patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, while IgG is formed in later stages of the disease. Although the difference between the level of IgM and IgG was not statistically significant in symptomatic subjects, the mean level of IgG was slightly higher than IgM.…”

Section: Antibody Level and Pcr Testsupporting

confidence: 91%

SARS-CoV-2 serological assay and viral testing: a report of professional football setting

Hassanmirzaei

Haratian²,

Amiri

et al. 2021

Postgraduate Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of the studyPCR is the current standard test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, due to its limitations, serological testing is considered an alternative method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 exposure. In this study, we measured the level of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies of male professional football players and compared the results with the standard PCR test to investigate the association between the two tests.Study designParticipants were male professional football players and team officials. Nasopharyngeal swabs and peripheral blood samples were collected for the PCR and serological tests, respectively. Also, previous records of COVID-19 testing and symptoms were gathered. Those with previous positive PCR tests who tested negative for the second time were considered to be recovered patients.ResultsOf the 1243 subjects, 222 (17.9%) were seropositive, while 29 (2.3%) tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Sixty percent of symptomatic cases with a negative PCR were found to be seropositive. The mean level of IgM was significantly higher in PCR-positive and symptomatic subjects, whereas the recovered cases showed significantly higher levels of IgG.ConclusionOur study revealed an inconsistency of results between the two tests; therefore, although application of serological assays alone seems insufficient in diagnosing COVID-19 disease, the findings are beneficial in the comprehension and the management of the disease.

show abstract

“…2 ). Both serological and molecular tests are not useful during the first week of the supposed infection because the virus is still in its incubation period and there are not yet sufficient copies of viral RNA in circulation neither antibodies nor viral proteins identifiable by serological tests ( 32 , 33 ). Therefore, before the onset of symptoms, the probability of correctly determining the presence of the virus, particularly using molecular tests, remains low ( 32 ).…”

Section: The Right Test On the Right Sample At The Right Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Current and innovative methods for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection (Review)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced the scientific community to rapidly develop highly reliable diagnostic methods in order to effectively and accurately diagnose this pathology, thus limiting the spread of infection. Although the structural and molecular characteristics of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were initially unknown, various diagnostic strategies useful for making a correct diagnosis of COVID-19 have been rapidly developed by private research laboratories and biomedical companies. At present, rapid antigen or antibody tests, immunoenzymatic serological tests and molecular tests based on RT-PCR are the most widely used and validated techniques worldwide. Apart from these conventional methods, other techniques, including isothermal nucleic acid amplification techniques, clusters of regularly inter-spaced short palindromic repeats/Cas (CRISPR/Cas)-based approaches or digital PCR methods are currently used in research contexts or are awaiting approval for diagnostic use by competent authorities. In order to provide guidance for the correct use of COVID-19 diagnostic tests, the present review describes the diagnostic strategies available which may be used for the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection in both clinical and research settings. In particular, the technical and instrumental characteristics of the diagnostic methods used are described herein. In addition, updated and detailed information about the type of sample, the modality and the timing of use of specific tests are also discussed.

show abstract

Antibody response and the clinical presentation of patients with COVID-19 in Croatia: the importance of a two-step testing approach

Cited by 13 publications

References 28 publications

Antibody Response to Covid-19 Infection- Clinical Variables at Play

Antibody Response to Covid-19 Infection- Clinical Variables at Play

SARS-CoV-2 serological assay and viral testing: a report of professional football setting

Current and innovative methods for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection (Review)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About