Dataset Information

Evaluation of C4b as an adjunct marker in symptomatic RT-PCR negative Covid-19 cases.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Detecting low viral load has been a challenge in this pandemic, which has led to its escalated transmission. Complement activation has been implicated in pathogenesis of Covid-19 infection. Thus, evaluation of complement activation in suspected Covid-19 infection may help to detect infection and limit false negative cases thus limiting transmission of infection. We speculate that measuring C4b, produced from an activated complement system due to the presence of Covid-19 may help in its detection, even when the viral titers are low.

Methods

Plasma C4b levels of symptomatic RT-PCR positive patients (cases, n = 40); symptomatic RT-PCR negative patients (n = 35) and asymptomatic RT-PCR negative controls (n = 40) were evaluated. Plasma C5b-9, IL-6, D-dimer and C1-Inhibitor (C1-INH) were also measured in cases and controls. ELISA kits were used for all measurements. Statistical analyses were carried out using Stata, version 12 (Stata Corp., Texas, USA).

Results

C4b levels were found to be significantly increased in RT-PCR positive patients as compared to asymptomatic RT-PCR negative controls. RT-PCR negative but symptomatic patients still showed increased C4b levels. The significantly higher levels of C4b in cases with a cut-off value of ≥ 116 ng/ml with optimum sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 52% respectively is indicative of its possible use as an adjunct marker. Increased levels of D-dimer, IL6, along with decreased levels of C1-INH were found in cases compared to controls. Whereas, C5b-9 levels were not significantly raised in cases.

Conclusions

The results of our study suggests that plasma C4b may help to detect infection in false negative cases of RT-PCR that escape detection owing to low viral load. However, to confirm it a large-scale study is needed.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12291-022-01033-z.

SUBMITTER: Kumari B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9207170 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases could be symptomatic or asymptomatic. We (1) characterized and analyzed data collected from the first cohort of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, according to the symptomatic state, and (2) identified factors associated with the symptomatic state. The association between the symptomatic state and testing positive in three subsequent RT-PCR testing rounds was also quantified. Between February 28 and April 8, 2020, 1,249 cases were reported. Sociodemographic characteristics, working status, travel history, and chronic comorbidities of 791 cases were analyzed according to the symptomatic state (symptomatic or asymptomatic). After the first confirmatory test, the results of three subsequent tests were analyzed. The mean age of the 791 cases was 35.6 ± 12.7 years (range: 1-81). Nearly 57.0% of cases were symptomatic. The two most frequent symptoms were fever (58.0%) and cough (41.0%). Symptomatic cases (mean age 36.3 ± 12.6 years) were significantly older than asymptomatic cases (mean age 34.5 ± 12.7 years). Compared with nonworking populations, working in public places (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.76, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.11-2.80), healthcare settings (aOR, 2.09, 95% CI: 1.01-4.31), or in the aviation and tourism sectors (aOR, 2.24, 95% CI: 1.14-4.40) was independently associated with the symptomatic state. Reporting at least one chronic comorbidity was also associated with symptomatic cases (aOR, 1.76, 95% CI: 1.03-3.01). Compared with asymptomatic cases, symptomatic cases had a prolonged duration of viral shedding and consistent odds of ?2 positive COVID-19 tests result out of the three subsequent testing rounds. A substantial proportion of the diagnosed COVID-19 cases in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi were asymptomatic. Quarantining asymptomatic cases, implementing prevention measures, and raising awareness among populations working in high-risk settings are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundA false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020.ResultsWe included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.ConclusionsThere is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence).Systematic review registrationProtocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

Project description:BackgroundPatients that arrive in the emergency department (ED) with COVID-19-like syndromes testing negative at the first RT-PCR represent a clinical challenge because of the lack of evidence about their management available in the literature. Our first aim was to quantify the proportion of patients testing negative at the first RT-PCR performed in our Emergency Department (ED) that were confirmed as having COVID-19 at the end of hospitalization by clinical judgment or by any subsequent microbiological testing. Secondly, we wanted to identify which variables that were available in the first assessment (ED variables) would have been useful in predicting patients, who at the end of the hospital stay were confirmed as having COVID-19 (false-negative at the first RT-PCR).MethodsWe retrospectively collected data of 115 negative patients from2020, March 1st to 2020, May 15th. Three experts revised patients' charts collecting information on the whole hospital stay and defining patients as COVID-19 or NOT-COVID-19. We compared ED variables in the two groups by univariate analysis and logistic regression.ResultsWe classified 66 patients as COVID-19 and identified the other 49 as having a differential diagnosis (NOT-COVID), with a concordance between the three experts of 0.77 (95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.66- 0.73). Only 15% of patients tested positive to a subsequent RT-PCR test, accounting for 25% of the clinically suspected. Having fever (odds ratio (OR) 3.32, (95%CI 0.97-12.31), p = 0.06), showing a typical pattern at the first lung ultrasound (OR 6.09, (95%CI 0.87-54.65), p = 0.08) or computed tomography scan (OR 4.18, (95%CI 1.11-17.86), p = 0.04) were associated with a higher probability of having COVID-19.ConclusionsIn patients admitted to ED with COVID-19 symptoms and negative RT-PCR a comprehensive clinical evaluation integrated with lung ultrasound and computed tomography could help to detect COVID-19 patients with a false negative RT-PCR result.