To the Editor, To face the new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the need for early and accurate diagnosis of the disease among suspected cases quickly became obvious for effective management, and for better control of the spread of the disease in the population. Since the beginning of this disease epidemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has routinely been used to confirm the diagnosis. However, several authors have pointed out the poor performance of this technique, particularly in terms of sensitivity. 1,2 Indeed, according to some authors, sensitivity could be as low as 38% 3 (ie, not better than chance). This made it necessary to find a more sensitive test, given the contagiousness of SARS-CoV-2. We, therefore, read with great interest the article published in your journal by Cassaniti et al. 4 This article deals with the diagnosis of COVID-19 by serology (immunoglobulin m/immunoglobulin G) as a complementary approach to RT-PCR to improve its sensitivity. According to Cassaniti et al 4 and Xiang et al, 5 serology is faster to implement, less expensive, easier to use, and more accessible to staff with no specific laboratory training. 5 The article describes the metrological performances of

Anti-SS-A antibodies are often sought for in autoimmune diseases diagnosis. Two different target proteins have actually been identified: Ro52 and Ro60. Clinical and immunological associations seem different depending on anti-Ro52 or anti-Ro60 antibodies presence. However, due to a heterogeneous presentation in the literature, some immunology laboratories in France have stopped providing anti-Ro52 antibody findings. We report here a new hospital study designed to determine the diagnostic utility of the separate detection of anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 antibodies. We conducted a retrospective, observational study, including every adult patient with positive antinuclear antibodies (ANA) tested in our immunology laboratory, and associated with anti-Ro52 and/or anti-Ro60 antibodies, between 2011 and 2014. Out of 13032 sera tested for ANA, 399 adults had antibodies to Ro52 and/or Ro60; 81.7% were female, with a mean age of 54.5 ± 17.0 years. Anti-Ro52 antibodies were found in 75.7% of the patients and anti-Ro60 antibodies in 56.9%. Among them, 43.1% were classified in the Ro52 + Ro60- group, 32.6% in the Ro52 + Ro60 + group and 24.3% in the Ro52-Ro60+ group. In the Ro52-Ro60+ group, systemic lupus was the most frequent diagnosis (48.5%), with a possible association with antiphospholipid antibodies (anti-cardiolipin antibodies: OR 2.5 (CI95 [1.0–5.0], p = 0.05) and lupus anticoagulant {OR 3.6 (CI95 [1.10–10.0] p = 0.02)}. In the Ro52+Ro60+, primary Sjögren Syndrome was the most likely (OR 4.2 95% CI [2.1–8.3] p < 10−4), especially in patients Ro52+Ro60+La+. Patients with isolated anti-Ro52 had a wider variety of diseases associated, but among auto-immune diseases they were more prone to inflammatory myositis (OR 10.5 [1.4–81.7], p = 0.02) and inflammatory rheumatism (OR 4.6 [1.6–13.8], p = 0.006) in contrast to systemic lupus (OR 0.2 [0.1–0.3], p < 10−4) or primary Sjögren's syndrome (OR 0.1 [0.06–0.2], p < 10−4). We therefore suggest that, when anti-ENA antibodies are prescribed, it should include separate anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 antibodies determination. To go even further, we would like to suggest a change in ENA nomenclature to avoid confusion, abandoning the anti-SS-A label in favor of the anti-Ro52/TRIM21 or anti-Ro60 antibody for a clearer designation.

Background The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men.

No abstract

Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre-including this research content-immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.