According to the literature, SARS\CoV\2 IgA was also elevated in COVID\19 patients, the diagnose specificity and sensitivity of SARS\CoV\2 IgA could be reached to 98

ubatubasat | Posted on September 8, 2022 |

According to the literature, SARS\CoV\2 IgA was also elevated in COVID\19 patients, the diagnose specificity and sensitivity of SARS\CoV\2 IgA could be reached to 98.1% and 98.6%. 10 For this reason, the next work for us is to further evaluate the diagnostic value of IgA to ensure the integrity for PI4KIIIbeta-IN-9 this study. Meanwhile, we analyzed the serum antibody results of 105 patients with COVID\19 confirmed by nucleic acid test, and found it was great possibe that antibody detection was negative within 0C5?days for patients infected with SARS\CoV\2 virus, IgM liter would increase significantly after 1?week, and IgG liter reached a peak within 15\21?days. onset 15C21?days) showed that the positive rate of IgG was higher than IgM. Also, the sensitivity of IgM combined with IgG was higher than IgM or IgG. IgM and IgG were monitored dynamically for 16 patients with COVID\19, the results showed that serological transformation of IgM was carried out simultaneously with IgG in seven patients, which was earlier than IgG in four patients and later than IgG in five patients. Conclusion The detection of SARS\CoV\2 IgM and IgG is very important to determine the course of COVID\19. Nucleic acid detection combined with serum antibody of SARS\CoV\2 may be the best laboratory indicator for the diagnosis of SARS\CoV\2 infection and the phrase and predication for prognosis of COVID\19. equal to 0.05 as the inspection standard. em p /em ??0.05 was treated as a significant difference. 3.?RESULTS 3.1. The demographic and characteristics of enrolled patients There were 302 patients adopted in the present retrospective study, including 197 non\COVID\19 and 105 COVID\19 patients. A total of 234 blood samples were used to detect antibody against SARS\CoV\2 for the former, whereas 152 for the latter. Non\COVID\19 patients had a median age of 54?years (IQR, 49C64), of whom 58.4% were female, and 44?years (IQR, 34C56) for COVID\19 patients, 46.7% were female (Table?1). TABLE PI4KIIIbeta-IN-9 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of enrolled patients thead valign=”top” th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Characteristics /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Non\COVID\19 /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ COVID\19 /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Total /th /thead Number197105302Age, Median (IQR)54 (49,64)44(34,56)52(43,63)Female115 (58.4%)49(46.7%)164(54.3%)Male82(41.6%)56(53.3%)138(45.6)Numbers of SARS\CoV\2 antibody tests detected per case, Median (IQR)2(1C3)2(1C3)2(1C3)Total number of test samples234152386 Open in a separate window Abbreviation: IQR, inter quartile range. 3.2. Positive rate of Specific IgM or IgG antibody against SARS\CoV\2 in non\COVID\19 and COVID\19 patients 105 COVID\19 patients were confirmed by testing SARS\CoV\2 nucleic acid of pharyngeal swabs using RT\qPCR. 152 serum samples of 105 COVID\19 were assigned to four groups according to collecting time after experiencing symptoms. There are 30 serum samples for IgM and IgG testing between 0 and 7?days after experiencing symptoms, 35 serum samples between 8 and 14?days, 51 serum samples between 15 and 21?days, 36 serum samples between 22 and 39?days (Table?2). TABLE 2 Positive rate of IgM or IgG antibodies against SARS\CoV\2 in non\COVID\19 and COVID\19 patients thead valign=”top” th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ Groups /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ em n /em /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ IgM+ (%) /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ IgG+ (%) /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ IgM+ or IgG+ (%) /th /thead COVID\19:0C73036.6763.3366.67COVID\19:8C143562.8685.7185.71COVID\19:15C215188.2494.12100COVID\19:22C393686.1194.4497.22Non\COVID\191972.036.608.12 Open in a separate window We especially concerned the group which had the largest sample numbers collected between 15 and PI4KIIIbeta-IN-9 21?days after experiencing symptoms. The positive rate of SARS\CoV\2 IgG antibody (94.12%, 48/51) was higher than IgM (88.24%, 45/51) ( em /em 2?=?10.129, em p /em ?= 0.001); the combination analysis for IgM and IgG (100%, 51/51) higher than IgM ( em /em 2?=?10.896, em p /em ?= 0.002) (Figure?1, Table?2). Open in a separate window FIGURE 1 Positive rate of antibody to SARS\CoV\2 for the subgroup of 15C21?days after experiencing Mmp2 symptoms. The line graph represents positive number; the bar graph represents positive rate We also analyzed the specificity of IgG and IgM antibodies in non\COVID\19 patients. There was no significant difference ( em /em 2??3.340, em p /em ??0.921) between the IgM (97.97%, 193/197) and IgG (93.40%, 184/197). Also, the specificity of IgM or IgG was higher than the combination of IgM and IgG, but no significant difference ( em /em 2?2.763, em p /em ??0.105; em /em 2??1.425, em p /em ??0.308). 3.3. The properties of SARS\CoV\2 IgM and IgG detected by MCLIA To evaluate the properties of the detection kits for SARS\CoV\2 IgM and IgG by MCLIA, 105 COVID\19 patients and 197 non\COVID\19 patients were tested (Table S1). The specificity of this kind of semi\quantitative kits for SARS\CoV\2 IgM, IgG, and their combinations was 97.97%, 93.40%, and 91.88%, respectively. The sensitivity was 82.86%, 90.48%, and PI4KIIIbeta-IN-9 96.16%, respectively (Table?3). TABLE 3 The properties of SARS\CoV\2 IgM and IgG detected by MCLIA thead valign=”top” th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ IgM (95% CI) /th th align=”left” valign=”top” rowspan=”1″ colspan=”1″ IgG (95%.