ABSTRACT
An indirect in-house immunofluorescent assay was developed in order to assess the serological status of COVID-19 patients in Marseille, France. Performance of IFA was compared to a commercial ELISA IgG kit. We tested 888 RT-qPCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients (1302 serum samples) and 350 controls including 200 sera collected before the pandemic, 64 sera known to be associated with nonspecific serological interference, 36 sera from non-coronavirus pneumonia and 50 sera from patient with other common coronavirus to elicit false-positive serology. Incorporating an inactivated clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolate as the antigen, the specificity of the assay was measured as 100% for IgA titre ≥ 1:200, 98.6% for IgM titre ≥ 1:200 and 96.3% for IgG titre ≥ 1:100 after testing a series of negative controls. IFA presented substantial agreement (86%) with ELISA EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 IgG kit (Cohen's Kappa = 0.61). The presence of antibodies was then measured at 3% before a 5-day evolution up to 47% after more than 15 days of evolution. We observed that the rates of seropositivity as well as the titre of specific antibodies were both significantly higher in patients with a poor clinical outcome than in patients with a favourable evolution. These data, which have to be integrated into the ongoing understanding of the immunological phase of the infection, suggest that detection anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is useful as a marker associated with COVID-19 severity. The IFA assay reported here is useful for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 exposure at the individual and population levels.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Young AdultABSTRACT
Randomized clinical trials are not relevant for infectious disease outbreaks due to a new pathogen, for which public health decisions have to be made urgently. An approach based on group comparisons, in silico, may provide valuable results in a reasonably short period of time for a negligible amount of money.
ABSTRACT
In the context of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of chloroquine derivatives in patients, based on unpublished and published reports available publicly on the internet as of 27 May 2020. The keywords 'hydroxychloroquine', 'chloroquine', 'coronavirus', 'COVID-19' and 'SARS-Cov-2' were used in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Google search engines without any restrictions as to date or language. Twenty studies were identified involving 105 040 patients (19 270 treated patients) from nine countries (Brazil, China, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain and the USA). Big data observational studies were associated with conflict of interest, lack of treatment dosage and duration, and absence of favourable outcome. Clinical studies were associated with favourable outcomes and details on therapy. Among clinical studies, three of four randomized controlled trials reported a significant favourable effect. Among clinical studies, a significant favourable summary effect was observed for duration of cough (OR 0.19, p 0.00003), duration of fever (OR 0.11, p 0.039), clinical cure (OR 0.21, p 0.0495), death (OR 0.32, p 4.1 × 10-6) and viral shedding (OR 0.43, p 0.031). A trend for a favourable effect was noted for the outcome 'death and/or intensive care unit transfer' (OR 0.29, p 0.069) with a point estimate remarkably similar to that observed for death (â¼0.3). In conclusion, a meta-analysis of publicly available clinical reports demonstrates that chloroquine derivatives are effective to improve clinical and virological outcomes, but, more importantly, they reduce mortality by a factor of 3 in patients with COVID-19. Big data are lacking basic treatment definitions and are linked to conflict of interest. The retraction of the only big data study associated with a significantly deleterious effect the day after (June 5, 2020) the acceptance of the present work (June 4, 2020) confirms the relevance of this work.