Admission eGFR predicts in-hospital mortality independently of admission glycemia and C-peptide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and impaired kidney function are associated with a higher risk of poor outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a retrospective study in hospitalized T2DM patients with COVID-19 to assess the association between in-hospital mortality and admission values of different hematological/biochemical parameters, including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma glucose and C-peptide (the latter serving as a marker of beta-cell function). METHODS: The study included T2DM patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who were consecutively admitted to our Institution between 1 October 2020 and 1 April 2021. RESULTS: Patients (n = 74) were categorized into survivors (n = 55) and non-survivors (n = 19). Non-survivors exhibited significantly higher median white blood cell (WBC) count, D-dimer, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and procalcitonin levels, as well as significantly lower median serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels compared to survivors. Non-survivors exhibited significantly higher median admission plasma glucose (APG) values compared to survivors (210 vs. 166 mg/dL; p = .026). There was no statistically significant difference in median values of (random) plasma C-peptide between non-survivors and survivors (3.55 vs. 3.24 ng/mL; p = .906). A significantly higher percentage of patients with an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was observed in the non-survivor group as compared to the survivor group (57.9% vs. 23.6%; p = .006). A multivariate analysis performed by a logistic regression model after adjusting for major confounders (age, sex, body mass index, major comorbidities) showed a significant inverse association between admission eGFR values and risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.956; 95% CI, 0.931-0.983; p = .001). We also found a significant positive association between admission WBC count and risk of in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.210; 95% CI, 1.043-1.404; p = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Admission eGFR and WBC count predict in-hospital COVID-19 mortality among T2DM patients, independently of traditional risk factors, APG and random plasma C-peptide. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and comorbid T2DM associated with impaired kidney function at admission should be considered at high risk for adverse outcomes and death.

Evaluation of commercially available fully automated and ELISA-based assays for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies.

Rapid and accurate measurement of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2)-specific neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) is paramount for monitoring immunity in infected and vaccinated subjects. The current gold standard relies on pseudovirus neutralization tests which require sophisticated skills and facilities. Alternatively, recent competitive immunoassays measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 nAbs are proposed as a quick and commercially available surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). Here, we report the performance evaluation of three sVNTs, including two ELISA-based assays and an automated bead-based immunoassay for detecting nAbs against SARS-CoV-2. The performance of three sVNTs, including GenScript cPass, Dynamiker, and Mindray NTAb was assessed in samples collected from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (n = 160), COVID-19 vaccinated individuals (n = 163), and pre-pandemic controls (n = 70). Samples were collected from infected patients and vaccinated individuals 2-24 weeks after symptoms onset or second dose administration. Correlation analysis with pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) and immunoassays detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 binding antibodies was performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was generated to assess the optimal threshold for detecting nAbs by each assay. All three sVNTs showed an excellent performance in terms of specificity (100%) and sensitivity (100%, 97.0%, and 97.1% for GenScript, Dynamiker, and Mindray, respectively) in samples collected from vaccinated subjects. GenScript demonstrated the strongest correlation with pVNT (r = 0.743, R2 = 0.552), followed by Mindray (r = 0.718, R2 = 0.515) and Dynamiker (r = 0.608, R2 = 0.369). Correlation with anti-SARS-CoV-2 binding antibodies was variable, but the strongest correlations were observed between anti-RBD IgG antibodies and Mindray (r = 0.952, R2 = 0.907). ROC curve analyses demonstrated excellent performance for all three sVNT assays in both groups, with an AUC ranging between 0.99 and 1.0 (p < 0.0001). Also, it was shown that the manufacturer's recommended cutoff values could be modified based on the tested cohort without significantly affecting the sVNT performance. The sVNT provides a rapid, low-cost, and scalable alternative to conventional neutralization assays for measuring and expanding nAbs testing across various research and clinical settings. Also, it could aid in evaluating actual protective immunity at the population level and assessing vaccine effectiveness to lay a foundation for boosters' requirements.

Evaluation of Hepcidin Level in COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents a clinical spectrum that ranges from a mild condition to critical illness. Patients with critical illness present respiratory failure, septic shock and/or multi-organ failure induced by the so called "cytokine storm". Inflammatory cytokines affect iron metabolism, mainly inducing the synthesis of hepcidin, a hormone peptide not routinely measured. High levels of hepcidin have been associated with the severity of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to analyze, retrospectively, the levels of hepcidin in a group of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of the Policlinico Tor Vergata of Rome, Italy. Thirty-eight patients from November 2020 to May 2021 were enrolled in the study. Based on the clinical outcome, the patients were assigned to two groups: survivors and non-survivors. Moreover, a series of routine laboratory parameters were monitored during the stay of the patients in the ICU and their levels correlated to the outcome. Statistical differences in the level of hepcidin, D-dimer, IL-6, LDH, NLR, neutrophils level, CRP, TNF-α and transferrin were observed between the groups. In particular, hepcidin values showed significantly different median concentrations (88 ng/mL vs. 146 ng/mL) between survivors and non-survivors. In addition, ROC curves analysis revealed sensitivity and specificity values of 74% and 76%, respectively, at a cut-off of 127 (ng/mL), indicating hepcidin as a good biomarker in predicting the severity and mortality of COVID-19 in ICU patients.

Predictive Value of MR-proADM in the Risk Stratification and in the Adequate Care Setting of COVID-19 Patients Assessed at the Triage of the Emergency Department.

In the past two pandemic years, Emergency Departments (ED) have been overrun with COVID-19-suspicious patients. Some data on the role played by laboratory biomarkers in the early risk stratification of COVID-19 patients have been recently published. The aim of this study is to assess the potential role of the new biomarker mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) in stratifying the in-hospital mortality risk of COVID-19 patients at the triage. A further goal of the present study is to evaluate whether MR-proADM together with other biochemical markers could play a key role in assessing the correct care level of these patients. Data from 321 consecutive patients admitted to the triage of the ED with a COVID-19 infection were analyzed. Epidemiological; demographic; clinical; laboratory; and outcome data were assessed. All the biomarkers analyzed showed an important role in predicting mortality. In particular, an increase of MR-proADM level at ED admission was independently associated with a threefold higher risk of IMV. MR-proADM showed greater ROC curves and AUC when compared to other laboratory biomarkers for the primary endpoint such as in-hospital mortality, except for CRP. This study shows that MR-proADM seems to be particularly effective for early predicting mortality and the need of ventilation in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ED.

T-Cell Assay after COVID-19 Vaccination Could Be a Useful Tool? A Pilot Study on Interferon-Gamma Release Assay in Healthcare Workers.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 T-cells are crucial for long-term protection against reinfection. The aim was to demonstrate the Interferon-gamma Release Assay (IGRA) test could be useful for vaccination monitoring. Methods: In a prospective cohort of 98 vaccinated healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2, we selected 23 people in low-antibodies (Group 1, N = 8), high-antibodies (Group 2, N = 9), and negative control groups (Group 3, N = 6). SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular responses were analyzed at 8 months after two doses of Pfizer BioNTech, evaluating anti-RBD (Receptor Binding Domain) and RBD-ACE2 (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme-2) blocking antibodies in sera through a Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA) and T-cells through the IGRA test in heparinized plasma. Moreover, lymphocyte subtyping was executed by a flow cytometer. Statistical analysis was performed. Results: The data confirmed that RBD and RBD-ACE2 blocking ACE2 antibody levels of Group 1 were significantly lower than Group 2; p < 0.001. However, T-cells showed no significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2. Conclusions: This work suggests the need for new strategies for booster doses administration.

Evaluation of Natural and Vaccine-Induced Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunity: A Comparative Study between Different Groups of Volunteers.

(1) Background: The production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies should help minimize the severity of COVID-19 disease. Our focus was to investigate and compare different vaccination schedules, monitoring circulating S-RBD Ab (antibodies anti-Spike protein-Receptor Binding Domain) levels after administering two doses in naïve patients. Likewise, vaccine-stimulated immunity in naïve and previously infected patients was compared. (2) Methods: We included 392 patients. Sera were evaluated by Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S. Statistical analyses were conducted by MedCalc and JASP. (3) Results: In COVID-19 patients, the median value of Ab levels was 154 BAU/mL, stable up to 9 months after the infection. From the data observed in vaccinated patients, higher median values were recorded in COVID-19/Pfizer BioNTech (18913 BAU/mL) than in other groups (Pfizer BioNTech: 1841; ChadOx1 961; heterologous vaccination: 2687) BAU/mL. (4) Conclusions: In conclusion, a single booster dose given to previously infected patients raised an antibody response much higher than two doses given to naïve individuals and heterologous vaccination generated a robust persistent antibody response at high levels, steady up to three months after administration.

Validation of a quantitative lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA)-based point-of-care (POC) rapid test for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies.

With the widespread use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, a rapid and reliable method to detect SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) is extremely important for monitoring vaccine effectiveness and immunity in the population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the RapiRead™ reader and the TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb rapid point-of-care (POC) test for quantitative measurement of antibodies against the spike protein receptor-binding domain of severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different biological matrices compared to chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) methods. Ninety-four samples were collected and analyzed using a RapiRead™ reader and TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb kits for detecting neutralizing antibodies, and then using two CLIAs. The data were compared statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test for more than two groups or the Mann-Whitney test for two groups. Specificity and sensitivity were evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Good correlation was observed between the rapid lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test system and both CLIA methods. RapiRead™ reader/TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb vs. Maglumi: correlation coefficient (r) = 0.728 for all patients; r = 0.841 for vaccinated patients. RapiRead™ reader/TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb vs. Mindray: r = 0.6394 in all patients; r = 0.8724 in vaccinated patients. The time stability of the POC serological test was also assessed considering two times of reading, 12 and 14 minutes. The data revealed no significant differences. The use of a RapiRead™ reader and TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb assay is a quantitative, rapid, and valid method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies and could be a useful tool for screening studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and assessing the efficacy of vaccines in a non-laboratory context.

Performance evaluation of four surrogate Virus Neutralization Tests (sVNTs) in comparison to the in vivo gold standard test.

BACKGROUND: Several commercial surrogate Virus Neutralization Tests (sVNTs) have been developed in the last year. Neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies through interaction with Spike protein Receptor Binding Domain (S-RBD) can block the virus from entering and infecting host cells. However, there is a lack of information about the functional activity of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that may be associated with protective responses. For these reasons, to counteract viral infection, the conventional virus neutralization test (VNT) is still considered the gold standard. The aim of this study was to contribute more and detailed information about sVNTs' performance, by determining in vitro the anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody concentration using four different commercial assays and then comparing the obtained data to VNT. METHODS: Eighty-eight samples were tested using two chemiluminescence assays (Snibe and Mindray) and two ELISA assays (Euroimmun and Diesse). The antibody titers were subsequently detected and quantified by VNT. RESULTS: The overall agreement between each sVNT and VNT was 95.45% for Euroimmun and 98.86% for Diesse, Mindray and Snibe. Additionally, we investigated whether the sVNTs were closer to the gold standard than traditional anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays S-RBD or S1 based, finding a higher agreement mean value for sVNTs (98.01 ± 1.705% vs 95.45 ± 1.921%; p < 0.05). Furthermore, Spearman's statistical analysis for the correlation of sVNT versus VNT showed r = 0.666 for Mindray; r = 0.696 for Diesse; r = 0.779 for Mindray and r = 0.810 for Euroimmun. CONCLUSIONS: Our data revealed a good agreement between VNT and sVNTs. Despite the VNT still remains the gold standard, the sVNT might be a valuable tool for screening wider populations.

The effects of reduced physical activity on the lipid profile in patients with high cardiovascular risk during COVID-19 lockdown

Aims The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious global health problem. In Italy, to limit the infections, the government ordered lockdown from March 2020. This measure, designed to contain the virus, led to serious limitations on the daily life of the individuals it affected, and in particular in the limitation of physical exercise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of reduced physical activity on the lipid profile in patients with high cardiovascular risk. Methods and results We enrolled 38 dyslipidaemic patients, 56% male, with an age range of 44–62 years, considered to be at high cardiovascular risk. All patients were prescribed statin drug therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg) and a vigorous physical activity program four times a week, 1 h per session. In addition, a personalized Mediterranean diet was prescribed to all the patients. Total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and triglycerides were measured in patients at T0 before lockdown and at T1 during lockdown. Data showed a significant increase (P < 0.01) in total cholesterol (+6.8%) and LDL (+15.8%). Furthermore, the analysis of the data revealed a reduction in HDL (−3%) and an increase in triglycerides (+3.2%), although both were not significant (P > 0.05). Of the 14 patients who were all in perfect therapeutic range at T0, only 4 (28%) had LDL <70 mg/dL at T1. Conclusions Our study showed that the reduction in physical activity during lockdown led to an increase in LDL levels, and therefore, in the risk of ischaemic heart disease in dyslipidaemic patients with high cardiovascular risk.

Evaluation of serological anti-SARS-CoV-2 chemiluminescent immunoassays correlated to live virus neutralization test, for the detection of anti-RBD antibodies as a relevant alternative in COVID-19 large-scale neutralizing activity monitoring.

The Spike-Receptor Binding Domain (S-RBD) is considered the most antigenic protein in SARS-CoV-2 and probably the key player in SARS-CoV-2 immune response. Quantitative immunoassays may help establish an anti-RBD Abs threshold as an indication of protective immunity. Since different immunoassays are commercial, the standard reference method for the neutralizing activity is the live Virus Neutralization Test (VNT). In this study, anti-RBD IgG levels were detected with two chemiluminescent immunoassays in paucisymptomatic, symptomatic and vaccinated subjects, and their neutralizing activity was correlated to VNT titer, using SARS-CoV-2 original and British variant strains. Both immunoassays confirmed higher anti-RBD Abs levels in vaccinated subjects. Furthermore, despite different anti-RBD Abs median concentrations between the immunoassays, a strong positive correlation with VNT was observed. In conclusion, although the SARS-CoV-2 immune response heterogeneity, the use of immunoassays can help in large-scale monitoring of COVID-19 samples, becoming a valid alternative to VNT test for diagnostic routine laboratories.

Evaluation of ECLIA antigen detection tests as screening methods for COVID-19 in comparison with molecular analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data from literature shows that antigen tests are rapid and helpful tools for diagnosis of COVID-19. AIM: This work aimed to evaluate the performances of the Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen test, in comparison to RT-qPCR, the gold standard. METHODS: A total of 110 swabs were tested; according to rRT-PCR, 76 were positive, and 34 were negative. The swabs were processed by Elecsys SARS CoV 2 Antigen assay (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany), an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA). RESULTS: In a first evaluation, the overall sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 100%, respectively. It was noted that most of the discordant cases had cycle threshold (Ct) values > 28. Therefore, it was assumed a new measure to evaluate sensitivity and specificity, then samples with Ct values < 28 were selected. In this way, it was achieved a Ct < 28 sensitivity of 94%. The level of agreement between the two tests was 89. 1% with κ value of 0.77 for total data and 95.9% with κ value of 0.95 for samples with < 28 Ct. The antigen test performs well in the presence of high viral loads, whereas lower levels are missed. CONCLUSIONS: The comparison data obtained in this study support that this method seems a proper approach for rapid screening of patients with high SARS-CoV-2 viral load; however, the rate of sensitivity is highly Ct-dependent.

Antibody response to COVID-19 vaccine: A point of view that can help to optimize dose distribution.

The global strategy to control coronavirus disease is based on the availability of COVID-19 vaccines. More information about response to a single dose vaccine could help to better understand and optimize the management of the vaccine campaign. Workers from the University of Rome "Tor Vergata" and the University Hospital of University of Rome "Tor Vergata," were monitored during their vaccination program. Serum samples were collected between the first and second dose and after the second dose. University personnel has been vaccinated with two doses of Vaxzevria vaccine 12 weeks apart, while hospital personnel has been vaccinated with two doses of Comirnaty 3 weeks apart. IgG antibodies (Abs) against the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the virus spike surface glycoprotein and neutralizing antibodies (NT) anti-SARS-CoV-2 that block the interaction between RBD and the surface receptor cellular angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE2) were measured using the CL-series Mindray chemiluminescent assays, respectively. Different amounts of antibodies produced after the two doses of vaccine were found. Individuals with a previous natural infection developed a higher Abs titer. Among the individuals with no history of past SARS-CoV-2 infection, 5% had an Abs level of the same order of magnitude of infected people, suggesting that they acquired the infection in an asymptomatic way. In such individuals, one dose of vaccine may be sufficient to obtain a protective immune response.

Serological anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies association to live virus neutralizing test titers in COVID-19 paucisymptomatic/symptomatic patients and vaccinated subjects.

A large number of immunoassays have been developed to detect specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; however, not always they are functional to neutralize the virus. The reference test for the anti-spike neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) ability to counteract the viral infection is the virus neutralization test (VNT). Great interest is developing on reliable serological assays allowing antibodies concentration and antibody protective titer correlation. The aim of our study was to detect nAbs serum levels in paucisymptomatic, symptomatic and vaccinated subjects, to find a cut-off value able to protect from virus infection. nAbs serum levels were detected by a competitive automated immunoassay, in association to VNT with the SARS-CoV-2 original and British variant strains. The median nAbs concentrations were: 281.3 BAU/ml for paucisymptomatics; 769.4 BAU/ml for symptomatics; 351.65 BAU/ml for the vaccinated cohort; 983 BAU/ml considering only the second dose vaccinated individuals. The original strain VNT analysis showed 1:80 median neutralization titers in paucisymptomatic and vaccinated subjects; 1:160 in symptomatic patients; 1:160 in the second dose groups. The British variant VNT analysis showed lower neutralization titers in paucisymptomatic and vaccinated groups (1:40); the same titer in symptomatic patients (1:160); the second dose group confirmed the original strain titer (1:160). In conclusion, our data showed optimal correlations with a proportional increase between neutralizing activity and antibody concentration, making nAbs detection a good alternative to virus neutralization assays, difficult to carry out in routine laboratories. Finally, ROC curve analysis established a cut-off of 408.6 BAU/ml to identify subjects with a low risk of infection.

The COVID-19 pandemic: viral variants and vaccine efficacy.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has prompted the scientific community and the pharmaceutical companies to put maximum efforts into developing vaccines to contain the spread of this disease. Presently, many vaccines have been developed and authorized for use in human beings in different countries. In particular, in Europe to date, the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized. All of them are based on a version of the spike (S) glycoprotein characterized at the beginning of the pandemic. However, they differ by their level of efficacy against COVID-19. SARS-COV-2, like other RNA viruses, mutates continually. Genome sequencing analysis shows a nucleotide substitution rate of about 1 × 10-3 substitutions per year that leads to the emergence of variants through point mutations, insertions, deletions and recombination. There is concern about the ability of the current vaccines to protect against emerging viral variants. Mutations in the S-glycoprotein may affect transmission dynamics and the risk of immune escape. In this review, we address the different technological platforms in use for developing COVID-19 vaccines, the impact of emerging viral variants on virus transmission, hospitalization, and response to current vaccines, as well as rare but important adverse reactions to them. Finally, different methods for measuring antibody response to the vaccines, including the importance of using the WHO International Standard to calibrate immunoassays accurately to an arbitrary unit, to reduce interlaboratory variation and to create a common language for reporting results, are reported.

The WHO International Standard for COVID-19 serological tests: towards harmonization of anti-spike assays.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays are relevant in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, providing valuable data on the immunization status of the population. However, current serology tests are highly variable, due to their different characteristics and to the lack of reference materials. The aim of the World Health Organization (WHO) first International Standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin is to harmonize humoral immune response assessment after natural infection or vaccination, and recommend reporting the results for binding activity in Binding Antibody Units (BAU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study analyzed six commercial quantitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-protein assays in a head-to-head comparison, using the manufacturers' conversion factors for the WHO IS to obtain BAU/mL values. RESULTS: Our data showed good alignment up to 1000 BAU/mL, then began to disperse, exhibiting some discrepancies. Moreover, correlations among methods varied with Cohen's Kappa ranging from 0.580 to 1.00, with the lowest agreement values for kits using different target antigens or different antibody isotypes, making it clear that the laboratory report should include this information. Values expressed as BAU/ml showed a reduced between-assays variability compared to AU/ml (median coefficients of variation 0.38 and 0.68, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: On the basis of these data at present anti-SARS CoV-2 serological assays' results are not interchangeable, and, more importantly, individual immune monitoring should be performed with the same method.

Evaluation of S-RBD and high specificity ACE-2-binding antibodies on SARS-CoV-2 patients after six months from infection.

The antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 has not yet fully defined, but the availability of sensitive and specific serological assays is crucial to observe the presence of specific antibodies against the human receptor binding domain (S-RBD) and high specificity ACE-2-binding antibodies or neutralizing antibodies (NT) in response to vaccines. Indeed, these peculiar antibodies should prevent viral interaction between RBD and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, located on surface of host cells. In this study, 72 samples from 37 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and 35 not-hospitalized patients were analyzed longitudinally. The detection of S-RBD and NT antibodies was carried out using CLIA tests. Hospitalized patients showed elevated serum levels of S-RBD (97.22%) and NT (77.78%) antibodies, differently, not-hospitalized, who were paucisymptomatic or asymptomatic patients, showed lower serum levels of S-RBD (65.71%) and NT (38.14%) antibodies. The results suggest that the NT serum level is strongly related to disease severity (p < 0.001) and to the serum level of S-RBD antibodies (p < 0.0001).

Low Vitamin D Status at Admission as a Risk Factor for Poor Survival in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: An Italian Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: Preliminary findings suggest a relationship between lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and incidence and severity of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between vitamin D status at admission and different markers of inflammation, coagulation, and sepsis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective study on 137 consecutive patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and available data on serum 25(OH)D levels, who were admitted to our Institution between March 1 and April 30, 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: survivors (n = 78; 57%) and non-survivors (n = 59; 43%). RESULTS: At admission, all patients showed hypovitaminosis D. Median total serum 25(OH)D levels at admission were significantly higher in survivors than non-survivors (12 ng/mL vs 8 ng/mL; p < 0.01). Non-survivors exhibited significantly higher median levels of white blood cell (WBC) count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte count ratio (NLR), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), ferritin, interleukin 6 (IL-6), D-dimer, fibrinogen, and procalcitonin (PCT) compared to survivors at three different time points during hospitalization. In a multivariate analysis performed by a logistic regression model, serum 25(OH)D levels were significantly inversely associated with risk of COVID-19-related in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.98; p = 0.01). According to receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, hsCRP, NLR, ferritin, and D-dimer were the best predictive biomarkers for poor prognosis of COVID-19, whereas IL-6, PCT, fibrinogen, 25(OH)D, WBC count, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) may serve as supportive biomarkers for worse clinical course of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: We found a markedly high prevalence (100%) of hypovitaminosis D in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, suggesting a possible role of low vitamin D status in increasing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent hospitalization. The inverse association between serum 25(OH)D levels and risk of in-hospital mortality observed in our cohort suggests that a lower vitamin D status upon admission may represent a modifiable and independent risk factor for poor prognosis in COVID-19.

Performance of a rapid antigen test in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Diagnostics is crucial for a prompt identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients, their isolation and treatment. Real-time PCR is the reference method for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the unprecedented increase in the number of infections worldwide calls for faster and easy methods that do not require skilled personnel and special equipment. Rapid antigen tests have been developed and used as first line screening. Here, we assessed the performance of a rapid antigen test in comparison to a real-time qualitative PCR as gold standard. Fifty nasopharyngeal swabs from suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been tested by Coris coronavirus disease 2019 Ag Respi-Strip test and Allplex 2019n-CoV assay. Of the 50 nasopharyngeal swabs tested, 11 were negative by both tests, 27 were negative by Ag test but positive by real-time PCR, and 12 were positive by both methods. PCR detected the 39 positive samples at a median cycle threshold (Ct) value of 22.78 (mean: 24.51; range: 13.59-39.6). In the 12 concordant samples, the median Ct value was 17.37. The sensitivity of the Ag test was 30.77% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.02%-47.57%), specificity 100% (95% CI: 71.51%-100.00%), positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 85.25% (95% CI: 82.42%-87.69%), and accuracy 86.15% (95% CI: 73.45%-94.28%). The level of agreement between the two tests was poor, k = 0.164. The Ag test performs well in the presence of high viral loads, whereas lower levels are missed. Considering the poor sensitivity of the method, real-time PCR remains the gold standard as front line screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Clinical validation of a second generation anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM automated chemiluminescent immunoassay.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has proven to be extremely contagious and has spread rapidly all over the world. A key aspect in limiting the virus diffusion is to ensure early and accurate diagnosis. Serological assays could be an alternative in increasing testing capabilities, particularly when used as part of an algorithmic approach combined with molecular analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a second generation chemiluminescent automated immunoassay able to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies. Data are carried out on healthy subjects and other infectious diseases pre-pandemic sera, as controls, and on two different coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patient groups (early and late infection time). Data obtained have been analyzed in terms of precision, linearity, sensitivity and specificity. Specificities are: 100% for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and 98% for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM, in all patient groups. Sensitivities are: 97%, 100%, and 98% for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and 87%, 83%, and 86% for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM in the early infection, in the late infection and in the total patient group, respectively. The Mindray anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM assays demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity, indicating that IgG and IgM simultaneous detection is useful even in the early phases of infection.

SARS-CoV-2 infection serology validation of different methods: Usefulness of IgA in the early phase of infection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was isolated from the respiratory samples of patients with pneumonia as showed by the sequence analysis of the virus genomes obtained in Wuhan, China. The antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood yet, but the availability of sensitive and specific serological assays will be crucial for the early diagnosis of infection, for epidemiological studies and for defining the presence of neutralizing antibodies in response to a possible vaccine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We tested and compared the performances of one chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA). RESULTS: The ECLIA serological assay performed best and may be a valid screening method for SARS-COV-2 infection. The IgA detected by the ELISA assay might be a more reliable and stable early serological marker than IgM. Instead, IgGs, as expected, showed stable level after 10 days from symptoms onset. CONCLUSION: The ECLIA method could be used as screening test, considering both the excellent performance and the cost per single test; while ELISA assay for IgG and IgA, which are present at a higher level than IgM and last longer, might be used as confirmatory test.