A pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been spreading throughout the world. Though molecular diagnostic tests are the gold standard for COVID-19, serological testing is emerging as a potential surveillance tool, in addition to its complementary role in COVID-19 diagnostics. Indubitably quantitative serological testing provides greater advantages than qualitative tests but today there is still little known about serological diagnostics and what the most appropriate role quantitative tests might play. Sixty-one COVID-19 patients and 64 patients from a control group were tested by iFlash1800 CLIA analyzer for anti-SARS CoV-2 antibodies IgM and IgG. All COVID-19 patients were hospitalized in San Giovanni di Dio Hospital (Florence, Italy) and had a positive oro/nasopharyngeal swab reversetranscription polymerase chain reaction result. The highest sensitivity with a very good specificity performance was reached at a cutoff value of 10.0 AU/mL for IgM and of 7.1 for IgG antibodies, hence near to the manufacturer's cutoff values of 10 AU/mL for both isotypes. The receiver operating characteristic curves showed area under the curve values of 0.918 and 0.980 for anti-SARS CoV-2 antibodies IgM and IgG, respectively. iFlash1800 CLIA analyzer has shown highly accurate results for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies profile and can be considered an excellent tool for COVID-19 diagnostics.

No abstract

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Although demographic and clinical parameters such as sex, age, comorbidities, genetic background and various biomarkers have been identified as risk factors, there is an unmet need to predict the risk and onset of severe inflammatory disease leading to poor clinical outcomes. In addition, very few mechanistic biomarkers are available to inform targeted treatment of severe (auto)-inflammatory conditions associated with COVID-19. Calprotectin, also known as S100A8/S100A9, MRP8/14 (Myeloid-Related Protein) or L1, is a heterodimer involved in neutrophil-related inflammatory processes. In COVID-19 patients, calprotectin levels were reported to be associated with poor clinical outcomes such as significantly reduced survival time, especially in patients with severe pulmonary disease. Areas covered: Pubmed was searched using the following keywords: Calprotectin + COVID19, S100A8/ A9 + COVID19, S100A8 + COVID-19, S100A9 + COVID-19, MRP8/14 + COVID19; L1 + COVID-19 between May 2020 and 8 March 2021. The results summarized in this review provide supporting evidence and propose future directions that define calprotectin as an important biomarker in COVID-19. Expert opinion: Calprotectin represents a promising serological biomarker for the risk assessment of COVID-19 patients.

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.

No abstract