RESUMEN
Background: During COVID-19 pandemic, it is difficult to distinguish febrile patient infected by SARS-CoV-2 or bacterial causes. Howell-Jolly bodies are a well-known entity found in red blood cells. They are nuclear fragments, composed of deoxyribonucleic acid, commonly observed in the peripheral blood smears of hyposplenic or asplenic patients. Recently, similar inclusions often referred to as Howell-Jolly body-like inclusions (HJBLIs) have been reported in the neutrophils of patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and COVID-19 patient. Aim: To explore whether HJBLIs in peripheral blood smear could differentiate between patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and bacterial pneumonia. Methods: We performed cross-sectional study using secondary data from COVID-19 database and re-evaluated peripheral blood smears to identify HJBLIs. We included confirmed COVID-19 adults age >18 years who were hospitalized in Dr. Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, Bandung, Indonesia from March 1st 2020-May 31st 2020. We also examined peripheral blood smears in patients with confirmed bacterial pneumonia as a control group. Clinical characteristics including disease severity, CURB-65 score, comorbidity, and the present of HJBLIs in peripheral blood smears were evaluated. Results: Overall, 33 patients were included: 22 were confirmed COVID-19 and 11 were confirmed bacterial pneumonia. The median (interquartile range) age in COVID-19 and patients with bacterial pneumonia were 53 years (40-64) vs 57 years (53-71), respectively. Compared with patients with bacterial pneumonia, HJBLIs were significantly higher in COVID-19 patients [21/22 (80.8%) vs 5/11 (45.5%), p 0.001]. Conclusion: Howell-Jolly body-like inclusions could be a potential feature to help differentiate between COVID-19 and bacterial pneumonia.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: We aim to describe the performance of combined IgM and IgG point-of-care antibody test (POC-Ab) (Wondfo®) compared to real-time reverse transcriptase (rRT-PCR) (Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay) in detecting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODOLOGY: We compared POC-Ab with rRT-PCR results among patients in a tertiary hospital from January to March 2020 in Bandung, Indonesia. We selected presumptive COVID-19 patients with positive rRT-PCR consecutively and 20 patients with negative rRT-PCR results were selected randomly from the same group of patients as controls. We described the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) with corresponding 95% confidence interval using serum and capillary blood samples. We also tested POC-Ab using non-COVID-19 (confirmed dengue and typhoid) patients' sera. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with positive rRT-PCR result and 20 negative controls were included (68.1% males, mean age 46 (SD: 15.4)). Using the serum, the sensitivity of the POC-Ab was 63.0% (42.4-80.6), specificity was 95.0% (75.1-99.9), PPV was 94.4% (72.7-99.8), NPV was 65.5% (45.7-82.1). A subset of 20 patients was tested using a capillary blood sample. The accuracy of the capillary blood sample is lower compared to serum (50.0% vs. 78.7%). None of the non-COVID-19 sera tested were reactive. CONCLUSIONS: POC-Ab for COVID-19 has a high specificity with no false-positive result in non-COVID-19 sera. Therefore, it can be used to guide diagnostic among symptomatic patients in resource limited settings. Given its low sensitivity, patients with high suspicion of COVID-19 but non-reactive result should be prioritized for rRT-PCR testing.