Hemostatic alterations linked to body fat distribution, fatty liver, and insulin resistance.

OBJECTIVE: Obesity, in particular visceral obesity, and insulin resistance emerged as major risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is strongly associated with hemostatic alterations. Because obesity and insulin resistance predispose to thrombotic diseases, we investigated the relationship between hemostatic alterations and body fat distribution in participants at risk for type 2 diabetes. SUBJECTS: Body fat distribution (visceral and subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue) and liver fat content of 150 participants - with impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose - were determined using magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Participants underwent precise metabolic characterization and major hemostasis parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: Procoagulant factors (FII, FVII, FVIII, and FIX) and anticoagulant proteins (antithrombin, protein C, and protein S) were significantly associated with body fat distribution. In patients with fatty liver, fibrinogen (298 mg/dl vs. 264 mg/dl, p = 0.0182), FVII (99% vs. 90%, p = 0.0049), FVIII (114% vs. 90%, p = 0.0098), protein C (124% vs. 111%, p = 0.0006), and protein S (109% vs. 89%, p < 0.0001) were higher than in controls. In contrast, antithrombin (97% vs. 102%, p = 0.0025) was higher in control patients. In multivariate analyses controlling for insulin sensitivity, body fat compartments, and genotype variants (PNPLA3I148MM/MI/TM6SF2E167kK/kE), only protein C and protein S remained significantly increased in fatty liver. CONCLUSIONS: Body fat distribution is significantly associated with alterations of procoagulant and anticoagulant parameters. Liver fat plays a key role in the regulation of protein C and protein S, suggesting a potential counteracting mechanism to the prothrombotic state in subjects with prediabetes and fatty liver.

Evaluation of three fully-automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays.

Objectives Serological assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are increasingly used during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-Coronavirus-2. Here we evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of three commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Methods A total of 186 samples from 58 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection were measured using SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics and Euroimmun. Additionally, 123 control samples, including samples collected before December 2019 and samples with potential cross-reactive antibodies were analyzed. Diagnostic specificity, sensitivity, agreement between assays and ROC curve-derived optimized thresholds were determined. Furthermore, intra- and inter-assay precision and the potential impact of interfering substances were investigated. Results SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Siemens and Roche showed 100% specificity. The Euroimmun assay had 98 and 100% specificity, when borderline results are considered as positive or negative, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity for samples collected ≥14 days after PCR-positivity was 97.0, 89.4 and 95.5% using the Siemens, Roche and Euroimmun assay, respectively. Sensitivity of the Roche assay can be increased using an optimized cut-off index (0.095). However, a simultaneous decrease in specificity (98.4%) was observed. Siemens showed 95.8 and 95.5% overall agreement with results of Euroimmun and Roche assay, respectively. Euroimmun and Roche assay exhibited 92.6% overall agreement. Discordant results were observed in three COVID-19 patients and in one COVID-19 patient none of the investigated assays detected antibodies. Conclusions The investigated assays were highly specific and sensitive in detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in samples obtained ≥14 days after PCR-confirmed infection. Discordant results need to be investigated in further studies.