No abstract

No abstract

According to anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroresponse in patients with COVID-19 from Croatia, we emphasised the issue of different serological tests and need for combining diagnostic methods for COVID-19 diagnosis. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG ELISA and IgM/IgG immunochromatographic assay (ICA) were used for testing 60 sera from 21 patients (6 with severe, 10 moderate, and 5 with mild disease). The main clinical, demographic, and haemato-biochemical data were analysed. The most common symptoms were cough (95.2%), fever (90.5%), and fatigue and shortness of breath (42.9%). Pulmonary opacities showed 76.2% of patients. Within the first 7 days of illness, seropositivity for ELISA IgA and IgG was 42.9% and 7.1%, and for ICA IgM and IgG 25% and 10.7%, respectively. From day 8 after onset, ELISA IgA and IgG seropositivity was 90.6% and 68.8%, and for ICA IgM and IgG 84.4% and 75%, respectively. In general, sensitivity for ELISA IgA and IgG was 68.3% and 40%, and for ICA IgM and IgG 56.7% and 45.0%, respectively. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody distributions by each method were statistically different (ICA IgM vs. IgG, p = 0.016; ELISA IgG vs. IgA, p < 0.001). Antibody response in COVID-19 varies and depends on the time the serum is taken, on the severity of disease, and on the type of test used. IgM and IgA antibodies as early-stage disease markers are comparable, although they cannot replace each other. Simultaneous IgM/IgG/IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing followed by the confirmation of positive findings with another test in a two-tier testing is recommended. Keywords COVID-19 diagnostics. Clinical and laboratory findings. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response. Serological methods. Two-step testing approach. Croatia

No abstract

The new corona virus SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2) causes a disease called COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), that develops mostly in subjects with already impaired immune system function, primarily in the elderly and in individuals with some chronic disease or condition. The reasons for this should be sought in the processes of aging and chronic latent inflammation, i.e. immunosenescence and inflammaging. Laboratory medicine specialists are currently focused on proving the presence of the virus and defining biomarkers that would enable the prediction of disease progression. For now, it has been shown that useful biomarkers can include general biomarkers of inflammation (parameters of complete blood count, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, procalcitonin), biomarkers of myocardial damage (high sensitivity troponin I/T, B-type natriuretic peptide, and N-terminal B type natriuretic peptide), and vascular biomarkers (D-dimer, prothrombin time, fibrinogen). Their actual diagnostic specificity, sensitivity and predictive value need to be tested on a larger number of subjects. In addition, it is important to find and evaluate specific biomarkers of immunosenescence.