ABSTRACT
A limited number of longitudinal studies have examined the symptoms associated with long-COVID-19. We conducted an assessment of symptom onset, severity and patient recovery, and determined the percentage of patients who experienced reinfection up to 2 years after the initial onset of the disease. Our cohort comprises 377 patients (≥18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in a secondary hospital (Madrid, Spain), throughout March 3-16, 2020. Disease outcomes and clinical data were followed-up until August 12, 2022. We reviewed the evolution of the 253 patients who had survived as of April 2020 (67.1%). Nine died between April 2020 and August 2022. A multivariate regression analysis performed to detect the risk factors associated with long-COVID-19 revealed that the increased likelihood was associated with chronic obstructive lung disease (OR 14.35, 95% CI 1.89-109.09; p = 0.010), dyspnea (5.02, 1.02-24.75; p = 0.048), higher LDH (3.23, 1.34-7.52; p = 0.006), and lower D-dimer levels (0.164, 0.04-0.678; p = 0.012). Reinfected patients (n = 45) (47.8 years; 39.7-67.2) were younger than non-reinfected patients (64.1 years; 48.6-74.4)) (p < 0.001). Patients who received a combination of vaccines exhibited fewer symptoms (44.4%) compared to those who received a single type of vaccine (77.8%) (p = 0.048). Long-COVID-19 was detected in 27.05% (66/244) of patients. The early detection of risk factors helps predict the clinical course of patients with COVID-19. Middle-aged adults could be susceptible to reinfection, highlighting the importance of prevention and control measures regardless of vaccination status.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundReal-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the current recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 acute infection, several factors such as requirement of special equipment, time consuming, high cost and skilled staff limit the use of these molecular techniques. A more rapid and high-throughput method is in growing demand. MethodsEvaluate the performances of the Panbio COVID-19 AG Rapid Test Device (Nasopharyngeal), a rapid immunochromatographic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, in comparison to RT-qPCR. ResultsThe RDT evaluated in this study showed a high sensitivity and specificity in samples mainly obtained during the first week of symptoms and with high viral loads. ConclusionsThis assay seems to be an effective strategy for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for the rapid identification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.
ABSTRACT
ObjectivesSerologic techniques can serve as a complement to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection. The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of six immunoassays to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2: three lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs), one ELISA and two chemiluminescence assays (CLIAs). MethodsWe evaluated three LFAs (Alltest, One Step and SeroFlash), one ELISA (Dia.Pro) and 34 two CLIAs (Elecsys and COV2T). To assess the specificity, 60 pre-pandemic sera were 35 used. To evaluate the sensitivity, we used 80 serum samples from patients with 36 positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Agreement between techniques was evaluated using the kappa score (k). ResultsAll immunoassays showed a specificity of 100% except for SeroFlash (96.7%). Overall sensitivity was 61.3%, 73.8%, 67.5%, 85.9%, 88.0% and 92.0% for Alltest, One Step, SeroFlash, Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T, respectively. Sensitivity increased throughout the first two weeks from the onset of symptoms, reaching sensitivities over 85% from 14 days for all LFAs, being One Step the most sensitive (97.6%), followed by SeroFlash (95.1%). Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T showed sensitivities over 97% from 14 days, being 100% for COV2T. One Step showed the best agreement results among LFAs, showing excellent agreement with Dia.Pro (agreement=94.2%, k=0.884), COV2T (99.1%, k=0.981) and Elecsys (97.3%, k=0.943). Dia.Pro, COV2T and Elecsys also showed excellent agreement between them. ConclusionOne Step, Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T obtained the best diagnostic performanc e results. All these techniques showed a specificity of 100% and sensitivities over 97% from 14 days after the onset of symptoms, as well as excellent levels of agreement.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUNDThe coronavius disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reached Spain by 31 January 2020, in April 2020, the Comunidad de Madrid suffered one of the worlds highest crude mortality rate ratios. This study aimed to detect risk factors for mortality in patients with COVID-19. METHODSOur cohort were all consecutive adult patients ([≥]18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 at a secondary hospital in Madrid, March 3-16, 2020. Clinical and laboratory data came from electronic clinical records and were compared between survivors and non-survivors, with outcomes followed up until April 4. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods allowed us to explore risk factors associated with in-hospital death. FINDINGSThe cohort comprised 562 patients with COVID-19. Clinical records were available for evaluation for 392 patients attended at the emergency department of our hospital, of whom 199 were discharged, 85 remained hospitalized and 108 died during hospitalization. Among 311 of the hospitalized patients, 34.7% died. Of the 392 patients with records, the median age was 71.5 years (50.6-80.7); 52.6% were men. 252 (64.3%) patients had a comorbidity, hypertension being the most common: 175 (44.6%), followed by other cardiovascular disease: 102 (26.0%) and diabetes: 97 (24.7%). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with age over 65 (odds ratio 8.32, 95% CI 3.01-22.96; p<0.001), coronary heart disease (2.76, 1.44-5.30; 0.002), and both lower lymphocyte count (0.34, 0.17-0.68; 0.002) and higher LDH (1.25, 1.05-1.50; 0.012) per 1-unit increase and per 100 units respectively. INTERPRETATIONCOVID-19 was associated in our hospital at the peak of the pandemic with a crude mortality ratio of 19.2% and a mortality ratio of 34.7% in admitted patients, considerably above most of the ratios described in the Chinese series. These results leave open the question as to which factors, epidemiological or intrinsically viral, apart from age and comorbidities, can explain this difference in excess mortality. FUNDINGNone.
