Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 24
Filter
1.
ESMO open ; 2023.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2276028

ABSTRACT

Patients with cancer have a well-known and higher risk of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). VPDs may cause severe complications in this setting due to the immune system impairment, malnutrition and oncological treatments. Despite this evidence, vaccination rates are inadequate. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) has been involved in vaccination awareness since 2014. Based on a careful review of the available data about the immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety of flu, pneumococcal and anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, we report the recommendations of the Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica about these vaccinations in adult patients with solid tumors. AIOM recommends comprehensive education on the issue of VPDs. We believe that a multidisciplinary care model may improve the vaccination coverage in immunocompromised patients. Continued surveillance, implementation of preventive practices and future well-designed immunological prospective studies are essential for a better management of our patients with cancer.

2.
Front Oncol ; 12: 961380, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2257085

ABSTRACT

Background: The rapid and global spread of COVID-19 posed a massive challenge to healthcare systems, which came across the need to provide high-intensity assistance to thousands of patients suffering from SARS-CoV-2 infection while assuring continuous care for all other diseases. This has been of particular importance in the oncology field. This study explores how oncology centers responded to the pandemic at a single center level by assessing surveys addressing different aspects of cancer care after the pandemic outbreak. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the cancer care surveys published until December 11th, 2020. Data were analyzed according to three main areas of interest, namely health care organization, including cancellation/delay and/or modification of scheduled treatments, cancellation/delay of outpatient visits, and reduction of overall cancer care activities; routine use of preventive measures, such as personal protective equipment (PPE) by both patients and health care workers, and systematic SARS-CoV-2 screening by nasopharyngeal swabs; and implementation of telemedicine through remote consultations. Findings: Fifty surveys reporting data on 9150 providers from 121 countries on 5 continents were included. Cancellation/delay of treatment occurred in 58% of centers; delay of outpatient visits in 75%; changes in treatment plans in 65%; and a general reduction in clinical activity in 58%. Routine use of PPE by patients and healthcare personnel was reported by 81% and 80% of centers, respectively; systematic SARS-CoV-2 screening by nasopharyngeal swabs was reported by only 41% of centers. Virtual visits were implemented by the majority (72%) of centers. Interpretation: These results describe the negative impact of COVID-19 on cancer care, the rapid response of cancer centers in terms of preventive measures and alternative treatment approaches such as telemedicine, and confirm that surveys can provide the valuable, low-cost and immediate information that critical situations require.

3.
Front Public Health ; 11: 1077103, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2259655

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on first and follow-up visits for cancer outpatients. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective observational study involving three Comprehensive Cancer Care Centers (CCCCs): IFO, including IRE and ISG in Rome, AUSL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, and IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II in Bari) and one oncology department in a Community Hospital (Saint'Andrea Hospital, Rome). From 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021, we evaluated the volume of outpatient consultations (first visits and follow-up), comparing them with the pre-pandemic year (2019). Results were analyzed by quarter according to the Rt (real-time indicator used to assess the evolution of the pandemic). IFO and IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II were "COVID-free" while AUSL-IRCCS RE was a "COVID-mixed" Institute. Depending on the Rt, Sain't Andrea Hospital experienced a "swinging" organizational pathway (COVID-free/ COVID-mixed). Results: Regarding the "first appointments", in 2020 the healthcare facilities operating in the North and Center of Italy showed a downward trend. In 2021, only AUSL-IRCCS RE showed an upward trend. Regarding the "follow-up", only AUSL IRCCS RE showed a slight up-trend in 2020. In 2021, IFO showed an increasing trend, while S. Andrea Hospital showed a negative plateau. Surprisingly, IRCCS Giovanni Paolo II in Bari showed an uptrend for both first appointment and follow-ups during pandemic and late pandemic except for the fourth quarter of 2021. Conclusions: During the first pandemic wave, no significant difference was observed amongst COVID-free and COVID-mixed Institutes and between CCCCs and a Community Hospital. In 2021 ("late pandemic year"), it has been more convenient to organize COVID-mixed pathway in the CCCCs rather than to keep the Institutions COVID-free. A swinging modality in the Community Hospital did not offer positive results in term of visit volumes. Our study about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on visit volume in cancer outpatients may help health systems to optimize the post-pandemic use of resources and improve healthcare policies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Outpatients , Pandemics , Health Policy , Hospitals, Community , Neoplasms/epidemiology
4.
Front Immunol ; 14: 1104124, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2244588

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Immunocompromised patients have been shown to have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Here we compared the B-cell, T-cell and neutralizing antibody response to WT and Omicron BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 virus after the fourth dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies (HM, n=71), solid tumors (ST, n=39) and immune-rheumatological (IR, n=25) diseases. The humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were analyzed by quantifying the anti-RBD antibodies, their neutralization activity and the IFN-γ released after spike specific stimulation. Results: We show that the T-cell response is similarly boosted by the fourth dose across the different subgroups, while the antibody response is improved only in patients not receiving B-cell targeted therapies, independent on the pathology. However, 9% of patients with anti-RBD antibodies did not have neutralizing antibodies to either virus variants, while an additional 5.7% did not have neutralizing antibodies to Omicron BA.2, making these patients particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The increment of neutralizing antibodies was very similar towards Omicron BA.2 and WT virus after the third or fourth dose of vaccine, suggesting that there is no preferential skewing towards either virus variant with the booster dose. The only limited step is the amount of antibodies that are elicited after vaccination, thus increasing the probability of developing neutralizing antibodies to both variants of virus. Discussion: These data support the recommendation of additional booster doses in frail patients to enhance the development of a B-cell response directed against Omicron and/or to enhance the T-cell response in patients treated with anti-CD20.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Immunocompromised Host , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 May 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2229082

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with solid or hematological tumors, neurological and immune-inflammatory disorders are potentially fragile subjects at increased risk of experiencing severe COVID-19 and an inadequate response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: We designed a prospective Italian multicentrer study to assess humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients (n = 378) with solid tumors (ST), hematological malignancies (HM), neurological disorders (ND) and immunorheumatological diseases (ID). A group of healthy controls was also included. We analyzed the immunogenicity of the primary vaccination schedule and booster dose. RESULTS: The overall seroconversion rate in patients after 2 doses was 62.1%. Significantly lower rates were observed in HM (52.4%) and ID (51.9%) than in ST (95.6%) and ND (70.7%); a lower median antibody level was detected in HM and ID versus ST and ND (P < 0.0001). Similar rates of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response were found in all disease groups, with a higher level observed in ND. The booster dose improved the humoral response in all disease groups, although to a lesser extent in HM patients, while the T-cell response increased similarly in all groups. In the multivariable logistic model, independent predictors of seroconversion were disease subgroup, treatment type and age. Ongoing treatment known to affect the immune system was associated with the worst humoral response to vaccination (P < 0.0001) but had no effect on T-cell responses. CONCLUSIONS: Immunosuppressive treatment more than disease type per se is a risk factor for a low humoral response after vaccination. The booster dose can improve both humoral and T-cell responses.

6.
Front Oncol ; 12: 1002168, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2099201

ABSTRACT

Importance: Despite people with impaired immune competence due to an underlying disease or ongoing therapy, hereinafter frail patients, are (likely to be) the first to be vaccinated, they were usually excluded from clinical trials. Objective: To report adverse reactions of frail patients after receipt of the third dose (booster) administered after completion of a two-dose mRNA vaccination and to compare with those reported after the receipt of the first two doses. Design: A multicenter, observational, prospective study aimed at evaluating both the safety profile and the immune response of Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines in frail patients. Setting: National Project on Vaccines, COVID-19 and Frail Patients (VAX4FRAIL). Participants: People consenting and included in the VAX4FRAIL trial. Exposure: A series of three doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination from the same manufacturer. Main outcomes and measures: Evaluation of a self-assessment questionnaire addressing a predefined list of eight symptoms on a five-item Likert scale. Symptoms were classified as severe if the patient rated them as severe or overwhelming. Results: Among 320 VAX4FRAIL participants diagnosed/treated for hematological malignancies (N=105; 32.8%), solid tumors (N=48; 15.0%), immune-rheumatological diseases (N=60; 18.8%), neurological diseases (N=107; 33.4%), and receiving the booster dose, 70.3% reported at least one loco-regional or systemic reactions. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate, none being life-threatening. Only six of the 320 (1.9%) patients had their treatment postponed due to the vaccine. The safety profile of the booster compared to previously administered two doses showed a stable prevalence of patients with one or more adverse events (73.5%, 79.7% and 73.9% respectively), and a slightly increment of patients with one or more severe adverse events (13.4%, 13.9% and 19.2% respectively). Conclusions and relevance: The booster of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was safely administered in the largest prospective cohort of frail patients reported so far. VAX4FRAIL will continue to monitor the safety of additional vaccine doses, especially systemic adverse events that can be easily prevented to avoid interruption of continuity of care. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04848493, identifier NCT04848493.

7.
Frontiers in oncology ; 12, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2072978

ABSTRACT

Background The rapid and global spread of COVID-19 posed a massive challenge to healthcare systems, which came across the need to provide high-intensity assistance to thousands of patients suffering from SARS-CoV-2 infection while assuring continuous care for all other diseases. This has been of particular importance in the oncology field. This study explores how oncology centers responded to the pandemic at a single center level by assessing surveys addressing different aspects of cancer care after the pandemic outbreak. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the cancer care surveys published until December 11th, 2020. Data were analyzed according to three main areas of interest, namely health care organization, including cancellation/delay and/or modification of scheduled treatments, cancellation/delay of outpatient visits, and reduction of overall cancer care activities;routine use of preventive measures, such as personal protective equipment (PPE) by both patients and health care workers, and systematic SARS-CoV-2 screening by nasopharyngeal swabs;and implementation of telemedicine through remote consultations. Findings Fifty surveys reporting data on 9150 providers from 121 countries on 5 continents were included. Cancellation/delay of treatment occurred in 58% of centers;delay of outpatient visits in 75%;changes in treatment plans in 65%;and a general reduction in clinical activity in 58%. Routine use of PPE by patients and healthcare personnel was reported by 81% and 80% of centers, respectively;systematic SARS-CoV-2 screening by nasopharyngeal swabs was reported by only 41% of centers. Virtual visits were implemented by the majority (72%) of centers. Interpretation These results describe the negative impact of COVID-19 on cancer care, the rapid response of cancer centers in terms of preventive measures and alternative treatment approaches such as telemedicine, and confirm that surveys can provide the valuable, low-cost and immediate information that critical situations require.

8.
Front Oncol ; 12: 828660, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1997470

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of the coronavirus 2 disease 2019 (COVID-19) puts an enormous burden on healthcare systems worldwide. This may worsen outcomes in patients with severe chronic diseases such as cancer, autoimmune diseases, and immune deficiencies. In this critical situation, only a few available data exist, which do not allow us to provide practical guides for the treatment of oncological or immunocompromised patients. Therefore, a further step forward is needed, addressing the specific needs and demands of frail patients in the pandemic era. Here we aim to present a protocol of a study approved by an ethical committee named "CO.M.E.TA". CO.M.E.TA protocol is a network project involving six Italian institutions and its goals are: i) to measure and compare the impact of the pandemic on the access of cancer and immunocompromised patients to therapies in three Italian regions; ii) to assess how reorganizational measures put in place in these different institutions have impacted specific metrics of performance; iii) to establish a COVID-19 Biobank of biological samples from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients to be used to study immunological alterations in patients with immune frailty.

10.
Front Oncol ; 12: 855723, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775732

ABSTRACT

Background: Frail patients are considered at relevant risk of complications due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and, for this reason, are prioritized candidates for vaccination. As these patients were originally not included in the registration trials, fear related to vaccine adverse events and disease worsening was one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Herein, we report the safety profile of the prospective, multicenter, national VAX4FRAIL study (NCT04848493) to evaluate vaccines in a large trans-disease cohort of patients with solid or hematological malignancies and neurological and rheumatological diseases. Methods: Between March 3 and September 2, 2021, 566 patients were evaluable for safety endpoint: 105 received the mRNA-1273 vaccine and 461 the BNT162b2 vaccine. Frail patients were defined per protocol as patients under treatment with hematological malignancies (n = 131), solid tumors (n = 191), immune-rheumatological diseases (n = 86), and neurological diseases (n = 158), including multiple sclerosis and generalized myasthenia. The impact of the vaccination on the health status of patients was assessed through a questionnaire focused on the first week after each vaccine dose. Results: The most frequently reported moderate-severe adverse events were pain at the injection site (60.3% after the first dose, 55.4% after the second), fatigue (30.1%-41.7%), bone pain (27.4%-27.2%), and headache (11.8%-18.9%). Risk factors associated with the occurrence of severe symptoms after vaccine administration were identified through a multivariate logistic regression analysis: age was associated with severe fever presentation (younger patients vs. middle-aged vs. older ones), female individuals presented a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and bone pain; and the mRNA-1237 vaccine was associated with a higher probability of severe pain at the injection site and fever. After the first dose, patients presenting a severe symptom were at a relevant risk of recurrence of the same severe symptom after the second one. Overall, 11 patients (1.9%) after the first dose and 7 (1.2%) after the second one required postponement or suspension of the disease-specific treatment. Finally, two fatal events occurred among our 566 patients. These two events were considered unrelated to the vaccine. Conclusions: Our study reports that mRNA-COVID-19 vaccination is safe also in frail patients; as expected, side effects were manageable and had a minimum impact on patient care path.

12.
Front Immunol ; 12: 704110, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376699

ABSTRACT

Patients diagnosed with malignancy, neurological and immunological disorders, i.e., fragile patients, have been excluded from COVID-19 vaccine trials. However, this population may present immune response abnormalities, and relative reduced vaccine responsiveness. Here we review the limited current evidence on the immune responses to vaccination of patients with different underlying diseases. To address open questions we present the VAX4FRAIL study aimed at assessing immune responses to vaccination in a large transdisease cohort of patients with cancer, neurological and rheumatological diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Adult , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Clinical Protocols , Humans , Immune System Diseases/immunology , Immunocompromised Host/immunology , Neoplasms/immunology , Nervous System Diseases/immunology , Patient Selection , Prospective Studies
13.
J Clin Med ; 10(16)2021 Aug 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1355000

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused an enormous loss of lives. Various clinical trials of vaccines and drugs are being conducted worldwide; nevertheless, as of today, no effective drug exists for COVID-19. The identification of key genes and pathways in this disease may lead to finding potential drug targets and biomarkers. Here, we applied weighted gene co-expression network analysis and LIME as an explainable artificial intelligence algorithm to comprehensively characterize transcriptional changes in bronchial epithelium cells (primary human lung epithelium (NHBE) and transformed lung alveolar (A549) cells) during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Our study detected a network that significantly correlated to the pathogenicity of COVID-19 infection based on identified hub genes in each cell line separately. The novel hub gene signature that was detected in our study, including PGLYRP4 and HEPHL1, may shed light on the pathogenesis of COVID-19, holding promise for future prognostic and therapeutic approaches. The enrichment analysis of hub genes showed that the most relevant biological process and KEGG pathways were the type I interferon signaling pathway, IL-17 signaling pathway, cytokine-mediated signaling pathway, and defense response to virus categories, all of which play significant roles in restricting viral infection. Moreover, according to the drug-target network, we identified 17 novel FDA-approved candidate drugs, which could potentially be used to treat COVID-19 patients through the regulation of four hub genes of the co-expression network. In conclusion, the aforementioned hub genes might play potential roles in translational medicine and might become promising therapeutic targets. Further in vitro and in vivo experimental studies are needed to evaluate the role of these hub genes in COVID-19.

14.
Front Oncol ; 10: 572329, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1264350

ABSTRACT

The recent outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China, which spread to the rest of the world, led the World Health Organization to classify it as a global pandemic. COVID-19 belongs to the Bettacoronavirus genus of the Coronaviridae family, and it mainly spreads through the respiratory tract. Studies have now confirmed a human-to-human transmission as the primary pathway of spread. COVID-19 patients with a history of diseases such as respiratory system diseases, immune deficiency, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer are prone to adverse events (admission to the intensive care unit requiring invasive ventilation or even death). The current focus has been on the development of novel therapeutics, including antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, and vaccines. However, although there is undoubtedly an urgent need to identify effective treatment options against infection with COVID-19, it is equally important to clarify management protocols for the other significant diseases from which these patients may suffer, including cancer. This review summarizes the current evidence regarding the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with COVID-19. It also aims to provide the reader with insights into COVID-19 in pregnant patients and those with cancer, outlining necessary precautions relevant to cancer patients. Finally, we provide the available evidence on the latest potent antiviral drugs and vaccines of COVID-19 and the ongoing drug trials.

15.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(6)2021 May 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256436

ABSTRACT

Health-care workers (HCW) are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and, if asymptomatic, for transmitting the virus to fragile cancer patients. We monitored all asymptomatic HCWs of a cancer institute (94% of all employees agreed to enter the study) with the rapid serological test, VivaDiagTM, identifying SARS-CoV-2 associated-IgM/IgG. The tests were performed at time 0 (n = 606) and after 14 days (n = 393). Overall, the VivaDiagTM results of nine HCWs (1.5%) were positive, with one confirmed to be SARS-CoV-2-positive after oropharyngeal swab testing by RT-PCR. At time 0, all nine cases showed IgM expression while IgG was detected in only one. After 14 days, IgM persisted in all the cases, while IgG became evident in four. A chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) confirmed IgM positivity in 5/13 VivaDiagTM positive cases and IgG positivity in 4/5 VivaDiagTM positive cases. Our study suggests that the VivaDiagTM test can be of help in identifying SARS-CoV-2 infected people in cohorts of subjects with a high prevalence.

16.
Cancers (Basel) ; 13(8)2021 04 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1186896

ABSTRACT

Since the start of the global spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, cancer patients were identified as a specifically susceptible subgroup of the patient population. Several reports have shown that cancer patients have an increased risk of both contracting the infection and of experiencing a more severe disease course, with a rapidly evolving picture associated with higher mortality. The assumption of cancer patients as "COVID-19 vulnerable" has led, irretrievably, to profound changes in the decision making of oncological treatments. Potential justifications for such concerns encompass the cancer-dependent suppression of the immune response, as well as the influence of administration of systemic anticancer treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Nevertheless, to date, it is not clear whether the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients is safe, given their modulating effects on the immune system, or that they may rather conceal detrimental consequences. Theoretically, on the one hand, ICIs may enhance the immunological control of viral infections through their immunostimulating mechanisms; on the other hand, they could contribute to the hyper-inflammatory phase of COVID-19, worsening its clinical outcomes. In this study, we report the foremost clinical observations on the safety of ICI administration in cancer patients affected by COVID-19.

17.
J Clin Med ; 10(5)2021 Mar 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1124853

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been declared a global pandemic. It is well-established that SARS-CoV-2 infection can lead to dysregulated immune responses. Arginase-1 (Arg1), which has a pivotal role in immune cells, can be expressed in most of the myeloid cells, e.g., neutrophils and macrophages. Arg1 has been associated with the suppression of antiviral immune responses. METHODS: Whole blood was taken from 21 COVID-19 patients and 21 healthy individuals, and after RNA extraction and complementary DNA (cDNA) synthesis, gene expression of Arg1 was measured by real-time PCR. RESULTS: The qPCR results showed that the expression of Arg1 was significantly increased in COVID-19 patients compared to healthy individuals (p < 0.01). The relative expression analysis demonstrated there were approximately 2.3 times increased Arg1 expression in the whole blood of COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed a considerable diagnostic value for Arg1 expression in COVID-19 (p = 0.0002 and AUC = 0.8401). CONCLUSION: Arg1 might be a promising marker in the pathogenesis of the disease, and it could be a valuable diagnostic tool.

19.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 625176, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069728

ABSTRACT

Background: Timely assessment of COVID-19 severity is crucial for the rapid provision of appropriate treatments. Definitive criteria for the early identification of severe COVID-19 cases that require intensive care unit admission are lacking. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective case-control study of 95 consecutive adults admitted to the intensive care unit (cases) or a medical ward (controls) for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Clinical data were collected and changes in laboratory test results were calculated between presentation at the emergency department and admission. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios for intensive care unit admission according to changes in laboratory variables. Results: Of the 95 adults with COVID-19, 25 were admitted to intensive care and 70 to a medical ward after a median 6 h stay in the emergency department. During this interval, neutrophil counts increased in cases and decreased in controls (median, 934 vs. -295 × 106/L; P = 0.006), while lymphocyte counts decreased in cases and increased in controls (median, -184 vs. 109 × 106/L; P < 0.001). In cases, the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio increased 6-fold and the urea-to-creatinine ratio increased 20-fold during the emergency department stay, but these ratios did not change in controls (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). By multivariable logistic regression, short-term increases in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.16-1.76) and urea-to-creatinine ratio (OR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.20-2.66) were independent predictors of intensive care unit admission. Conclusion: Short-time changes in neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and urea-to-creatinine ratio emerged as stand-alone parameters able to identify patients with aggressive disease at an early stage.

20.
J Med Internet Res ; 22(10): e19152, 2020 10 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-982931

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for the identification of viral nucleic acid is the current standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but technical issues limit its utilization for large-scale screening. Serological immunoglobulin M (IgM)/IgG testing has been proposed as a useful tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 exposure. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare the results of the rapid serological VivaDiag test for SARS-CoV-2-related IgM/IgG detection with those of the standard RT-PCR laboratory test for identifying SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid. METHODS: We simultaneously performed both serological and molecular tests with a consecutive series of 191 symptomatic patients. The results provided by a new rapid serological colorimetric test for analyzing IgM/IgG expression were compared with those of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection. RESULTS: Of the 191 subjects, 70 (36.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR results, while 34 (17.3%) tested positive based on serological IgM/IgG expression. Additionally, 13 (6.8%) subjects tested positive based on serological test results, but also tested negative based on RT-PCR results. The rapid serological test had a sensitivity of 30% and a specificity of 89% compared to the standard RT-PCR assay. Interestingly, the performance of both assays improved 8 days after symptom appearance. After 10 days had passed since symptom appearance, the predictive value of the rapid serological test was higher than that of the standard molecular assay (proportion of positive results: 40% vs 20%). Multivariate analysis showed that age >58 years (P<.01) and period of >15 days after symptom onset (P<.02) were significant and independent factors associated with serological test positivity. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid serological test analyzed in this study seems limited in terms of usefulness when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it may be useful for providing relevant information on people's immunoreaction to COVID-19 exposure.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/immunology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Serologic Tests/methods , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/analysis , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Immunoglobulin M/analysis , Immunoglobulin M/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL