ABSTRACT
Objetivo: Identificación dentro del grupo de pacientes de alto riesgo a aquellos que presentan más posibilidad de presentar inmunidad postvacunal insuficiente. Método: Determinación de títulos de IgG frente a SARS-CoV-2 después de la dosis de recuerdo. Se clasificó la respuesta vacunal como negativa (títulos IgG < 34 BAU/ml), indeterminada (títulos 34 - 259 BAU/ml) o positiva (≥ 260 BAU/ml). Resultados: Se incluyeron 765 pacientes (31,25% de los vacunados). 54 (7,1%) en tratamiento con fármacos biológicos, 90 (11,8 %) con enfermedad hematológica, 299 (39,1%) con patología oncológica, 304 (39,7%) con trasplante de órgano sólido y 18 (2.4%) con inmunosupresión por otros motivos. 74 pacientes (9,7%) tuvieron una serología negativa y 45 (5,9%) obtuvieron títulos indeterminados. Por grupo diagnóstico los pacientes con mayor porcentaje de serología negativa o indeterminada fueron pacientes bajo tratamiento con fármacos biológicos (55,6%, fundamentalmente a expensas de antiCD20), hematológicos (35,4%) y los trasplantados (17,8%, principalmente pulmón y riñón). Los pacientes oncológicos y otros pacientes inmunosuprimidos tuvieron buena respuesta vacunal. Conclusión: Los pacientes tratados con fármacos antiCD20, los hematológicos y los trasplantados (fundamentalmente de pulmón y riñón) presentaron mayor riesgo de no desarrollar inmunidad postvacunal. Es fundamental su identificación de cara a individualizar y mejorar su manejo.
ABSTRACT
Importance: The actual demand on SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis is a current challenge for clinical laboratories. Sample pooling may help to ameliorate workload in clinical laboratories. Objective: to evaluate the efficacy of sample pooling compared to the individual analysis for the diagnosis of CoVID-19, by using different commercial platforms for nucleic acid extraction and amplification. Design and settings: observational, prospective, multicentre study across 9 Spanish clinical microbiology laboratories including SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing performed in April 2020, during the first three days after acceptance to participate. Participants and Methods: 3519 naso-oro-pharyngeal samples received at the participating laboratories were processed individually and in pools (351 pools) according to the existing methodology in each of the centres. Results: We found that 253 pools (2519 samples) were negative, and 99 pools (990 samples) were positive; with 241 positive samples (6.85%), our pooling strategy would have saved 2167 PCR tests. For 29 pools (made out of 290 samples) we found discordant results when compared to their correspondent individual samples: in 24/29 pools (30 samples), minor discordances were found; for five pools (5 samples), we found major discordances. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for pooling were 97.93%, 100%, 100% and 99.85% respectively; accuracy was 99.86% and kappa concordant coefficient was 0.988. As a result of the sample dilution effect of pooling, a loss of 2-3 Cts was observed for E, N or RdRP genes. Conclusion: we show a high efficiency of pooling strategies for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing, across different RNA extraction and amplification platforms, with excellent performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. We believe that our results may help clinical laboratories to respond to the actual demand and clinical need on SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially for the screening of low prevalence populations.