Risk factors for disease severity, unimprovement, and mortality in COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China

Moving Safely to Phase 2 of the COVID-19 Pandemic: What Is More Pressing, Dates or Data?

An in-depth analysis of gathered data collected in several countries on the pre-infectious characteristics of patients who have developed severe forms of COVID-19 disease could be the basis for developing tools to estimate individual risk and tailor protective measures for a safer route through the Phase 2 of the pandemic.

Antibody Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Meta-Analysis

The emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 made imperative the need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies are usually inconclusive, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. We used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA), and the Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA). We identified 38 studies containing data from 7848 individuals. Tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody alone. All methods yield high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods perform better in terms of sensitivity (90%-94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 89%. ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. LFIA tests are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies but show lower sensitivity, and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.

The role of essential organ-based comorbidities in the prognosis of COVID-19 infection patients

Objectives: To assess the role of essential organ-based comorbidities in the prognosis of COVID-19 patients.

Methods: All consecutive patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from 11 January to 16 March 2020 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study.

Results: A total of 212 COVID-19 patients were included. COVID-19 patients with heart, liver and kidneycomorbidity, compared to patients without related comorbidities, were more likely to have cardiac injuries [9.1%(3/33) vs 2.2%(4/179), P = 0.043], liver injuries [13.0%(3/23) vs 3.2%(6/189), P = 0.027], kidney injury [54.5%(6/11) vs 2.0%(4/201), P < 0.001], and higher risk of mortality [Heart-comorbidity: 6.1%(2/33) vs 0.6%(1/179), P = 0.014; Liver-comorbidity: 8.7%(2/23) vs 0.5%(1/189), P = 0.002; Kidney-comorbidity: 27.3%(3/11) vs 1.0%(2/201), P < 0.001. Mortality was higher in patients with more severe Grade of organ injuries [Heart-injury: P = 0.044; Liver-injury: P = 0.020; Kidney-injury: P = 0.030].

Conclusion: Male, older, co-existing of heart, liver, and kidney comorbidities, especially those with severe Grade organ injuries, had a poor prognosis after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Antibody seroconversion in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

OBJECTIVES

Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients may transmit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but their clinical features and immune responses remain largely unclear. We aimed to characterise the clinical features and immune responses of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We collected clinical, laboratory and epidemiological records of patients hospitalised in a coronavirus field hospital in Wuhan. We performed qualitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) using archived blood samples.

RESULTS

Of 214 patients with SARS-CoV-2, 26 (12%) were asymptomatic at hospital admission and during hospitalisation. Most asymptomatic patients were ≤ 60 years (96%) and females (65%) and had few comorbidities (< 16%). Serum levels of white and red blood cells were higher in asymptomatic than in symptomatic patients (P-values < 0.05). During hospitalisation, IgG seroconversion was commonly observed in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients (85% versus 94%, P-value = 0.07); in contrast, IgM seroconversion was less common in asymptomatic than in symptomatic patients (31% versus 74%, P-value < 0.001). The median time from the first virus-positive screening to IgG or IgM seroconversion was significantly shorter in asymptomatic than in symptomatic patients (median: 7 versus 14 days, P-value < 0.01). Furthermore, IgG/IgM seroconversion rates increased concomitantly with the clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. At the time of virus clearance, IgG/IgM titres and plasma neutralisation capacity were significantly lower in recovered asymptomatic than in recovered symptomatic patients (P-values < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients exhibited different kinetics of IgG/IgM responses to SARS-CoV-2. Asymptomatic patients may transmit SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the importance of early diagnosis and treatment.