Testing Antigens, Antibodies, and Immune Cells in COVID-19 as a Public Health Topic—Experience and Outlines

Neagu, Monica; Constantin, Carolina; Surcel, Mihaela

doi:10.3390/ijerph182413173

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 120 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Testing the humoral response in COVID-19 and further in vaccination 37 , is important to correctly evaluate the immune response to the natural and/or artificial immunization 38 . Besides their privileged scientific value, these assesements were acutely demanded by the actual pandemic framework, when the whole flow of research, production, authorizing and use of the vaccines against COVID-19 was carried out at a rapid pace.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunogenicity evaluation after BNT162b2 booster vaccination in healthcare workers

Zurac

Vlădan

Dincă

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Waning of the immune response upon vaccination in SARS-CoV-2 infection is an important subject of evaluation in this pandemic, mostly in healthcare workers (HCW) that are constantly in contact with infected samples and patients. Therefore, our study aimed to establish the specific humoral response of specific IgG and IgA antibodies upon vaccination, during the second year of pandemic and evaluating the booster shot with the same vaccine type. A group of 103 HCW with documented exposure to the virus were monitored for specific IgG and IgA levels prior to vaccination, after the first vaccination round, during the following 8 months and after the booster shot with the same vaccine type. After 8 months post-vaccination the humoral response in both IgG and IgA decreased, 2.4 times for IgG, and 2.7 times for IgA. Although the antibodies levels significantly decreased, no documented infection was registered in the group. After the booster shot, the entire group, displayed IgG increased levels, immediately after booster followed by the increase in specific IgA. IgG levels post-second round of vaccination are statistically higher compared to the first round, while IgA is restored at the same levels. Within the vaccination or booster routine for a multiple waves’ pandemic that is generating new virus variants, populational immunity remains an important issue for future implementation of prevention/control measures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immunogenicity evaluation after BNT162b2 booster vaccination in healthcare workers

Zurac

Vlădan

Dincă

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SARS-CoV-2 infection is detected by a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, which detects the viral RNA in the patient sample [ 16 ]. In addition, many other antibody tests, such as the rapid-antigen test, have also been developed and are available on the market for detecting the viral infection [ 17 ]. Among these various COVID-19 diagnosis tests, RT-PCR is considered a gold-standard test for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 infection [ 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Clinical Profile and Treatment Outcome in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patients

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome-corona virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, which causes coronavirus disease–19 (COVID-19) in humans, have been developed and are being tested for safety and efficacy. We conducted the cross-sectional prospective cohort study on 820 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were admitted to Princess Krishnajammanni trauma care centre (PKTCC), Mysore, which was converted to a designated COVID hospital between April 2021 to July 2021. After obtaining the informed consent, RT-PCR report, vaccination certificate and patient history, patients were classified according to their vaccination status. Results from the study showed decreases in serum ferritin levels, clinical symptoms, improvement in oxygen saturation, early recovery in patients having diabetes and hypertension, and a substantial reduction in the overall duration of hospital stay in vaccinated patients compared to unvaccinated patients. Further, fully vaccinated patients showed better outcomes compared to single dose vaccinated and nonvaccinated patients. Taken together, our findings reaffirm the vaccine’s effectiveness in reducing case fatality and promoting faster recovery compared to nonvaccinated patients. Efforts to increase the number of immunized subjects in the community help to achieve herd immunity and offer protection against the severity of COVID-19 and associated complications while minimizing the public health and economic burden.

show abstract

“…Data from ELISA, CLIA, LFIA, CMIA, and FIA-based serological tests show low sensitivity with a median less than or equal to 90% and high specificity with a median greater than or equal to 97%. Low sensitivity would produce false negative results since they cannot detect intrinsic immunological differences or immune responses between individuals, and it must be considered that in asymptomatic patients antibodies can be produced, still, their titers are not as high as those detected in symptomatic patients [170]. When SARS-CoV-2 invades the human body and releases antigens, the immune system is activated to produce many specific antibodies (IgM/IgA/IgG), the host's immune cells produce IgM and IgA at an early stage of infection, while IgG at a late stage [171][172][173].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic accuracy tests of COVID-19

Vilca-Alosilla

Candia-Puma

Coronel-Monje

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work, we report a systematic review and meta-analysis that seeks to analyze the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this article is to detail the scientific findings based on diagnostic tests of the last years when the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) occurred. Searches for published studies were carried out in the PubMed database between the years 2020 and 2021 for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Ninety-nine scientific articles that met the criteria were examined and accepted in the meta-analysis, and the diagnostic accuracy was evaluated through specificity and sensitivity. Molecular tests [Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)] showed better performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity when compared to serological tests [Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassays (CMIA), and Fluorescence immunoassay (FIA)], which showed higher specificity, mainly for the detection of IgG antibodies; however, they showed sensitivity <90%. In addition, the antiviral neutralization bioassay (ANB) diagnostic test demonstrated high potential for the diagnosis of COVID-19, since it obtained the highest area under the curve restricted to the false-positive rates (AUCFPR) of 0.984. It is settled that the different diagnostic tests have been efficiently adapted for the detection of SARS-CoV-2; however, their performance still needs to be optimized to control future outbreaks of COVID-19, which will also serve to help the control of future infectious agents.

show abstract

Testing Antigens, Antibodies, and Immune Cells in COVID-19 as a Public Health Topic—Experience and Outlines

Cited by 9 publications

References 120 publications

Immunogenicity evaluation after BNT162b2 booster vaccination in healthcare workers

Immunogenicity evaluation after BNT162b2 booster vaccination in healthcare workers

Assessment of Clinical Profile and Treatment Outcome in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patients

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic accuracy tests of COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About