Reliable high-throughput serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are urgently needed for the effective containment of the COVID-19 pandemic, as it is of crucial importance to understand the strength and duration of immunity after infection, and to make informed decisions concerning the activation or discontinuation of physical distancing restrictions. In 184 serum samples from 130 COVID-19 patients and 54 SARS-CoV-2 negative subjects, the analytical and clinical performances of four commercially available chemiluminescent assays (Abbott SARS-Cov-2 IgG, Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2, Ortho SARS-CoV-2 total and IgG) and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Diesse ENZY-WELL SARS-CoV-2 IgG) were evaluated and compared with the neutralization activity achieved using the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Precision results ranged from 0.9% to 11.8% for all assays. Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated linearity of results at concentrations within the cut-off value. Overall, sensitivity ranged from 78.5 to 87.7%, and specificity, from 97.6 to 100%. On limiting the analysis to samples collected 12 days after onset of symptoms, the sensitivity of all assays increased, the highest value (95.2%) being obtained with VITRO Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total and Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG. The strongest PRNT50 correlation with antibody levels was obtained with ENZY-Well SARS-CoV-2 IgG (R2adj = 0.569). The results confirmed that all immunoassays had an excellent specificity, whereas sensitivity varied across immunoassays, depending strongly on the time interval between symptoms onset and sample collection. Further studies should be conducted to achieve a stronger correlation between antibody measurement and PRNT50 in order to obtain useful information for providing a better management of COVID-19 patients, effective passive antibody therapy, and developing a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. None.

Middle-distance running acutely influences the concentration and composition of serum bile acids. Potential implications for cancer risk?

Although the clinical significance of measuring bile acids concentration in plasma or serum has been recognized for long in patients with hepatobiliary disease and/or bile acid malabsorption, the reference separation techniques are expensive and mostly unsuitable for early diagnosis and for measuring large volumes of samples. Therefore, this study was aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of three commercial enzymatic techniques for measuring total bile acids in plasma using a fully-automated clinical chemistry platform. Three commercial enzymatic assays (from Diazyme, Randox and Sentinel) were adapted for use on a Cobas Roche c501. We performed imprecision and linearity studies, and we compared results with those obtained using a reference liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) technique on an identical set of lithium-heparin plasma samples. Total imprecision was optimal, always equal or lower than 3%. All assays had optimal linearity between 3–138 μmol/L. The comparison studies showed good correlation with LC-MS data (Spearman’s correlation coefficients always >0.92), but all plasma samples values were significantly underestimated using the commercial enzymatic assays (-44% for Diazyme, -16% for Randox and -12% for Sentinel). The agreement at the 10 and 40 μmol/L diagnostic thresholds of total bile acids in plasma ranged between 86–92%. This discrepancy was found to be mainly attributable to a heterogeneous composition in terms of bile acids content of the three assay calibrators. This study suggests that the analytical performance of the three commercial enzymatic assays is excellent, thus confirming that automation of this important test by means of enzymatic assessment may be feasible, practical, reliable and supposedly cheap. Nevertheless, the underestimation of values compared to the reference LC-MS also suggests that the local definition and validation of reference ranges according to the combination between the specific enzymatic assay and the different clinical chemistry platforms may be advisable.

Objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a life-threatening infectious disorder characterized by a sustained prothrombotic state. Since homocysteine is a potential biomarker of thrombotic diseases, the aim of this article is to provide an updated overview on the possible role played by hyperhomocysteinemia in influencing an unfavorable COVID-19 progression. Methods: We carried out an electronic search in Medline (PubMed interface) using the keywords (“COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2”) AND “homocysteine”, between 2019 and the present time, with no language restrictions, to identify all articles which explored the concentration of homocysteine in COVID-19 patients with or without unfavorable disease progression. Results: Three studies, totaling 694 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, were included in our systematic review. Overall, the differences between the mean homocysteine values in non-severe vs. severe COVID-19 patients were always positive (i.e., 15.1%, 24.1% and 22.8%, generating a positive weight mean difference of 1.75 μmol/L (95%CI, 1.26–2.25 μmol/L; p=0.011), which translates into a cumulative difference of approximately ∼1.2 μmol/L. Conclusions: Despite the limited evidence that has been garnered so far, increased homocysteine ​​levels may be a potentially useful marker for predicting the risk of unfavorable progression in patients with COVID-19.