Search

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.

We assessed hepatitis E virus (HEV) seroprevalence in patients with hepatic disorders as well as in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients and emphasised the issue of possible non-specific anti-HEV seroresponse and need for combining diagnostic methods for hepatitis E diagnosis. Over a two-year period, from March 2011 to February 2013, we determined anti-HEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG by enzyme immunoassays (EIA; Mikrogen, Germany) in 504 hepatitis patients negative for acute viral hepatitis A-C. Furthermore, 88 samples from randomly selected consecutive HIV-infected patients were also analysed. All EIA reactive samples were additionally tested by line immunoblot assays (LIA; Mikrogen, Germany). HEV nested reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was carried out in 14 anti-HEV IgM LIA-positive patients. Anti-HEV IgM or IgG were detected in 16.9 % of patients by EIA and confirmed by LIA in 10.7 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 8.3-13.7 %] of hepatitis patients. HEV RNA was detected in five patients. The agreement between EIA and LIA assessed by Cohen's kappa was 0.47 (95 % CI 0.55-0.75) for IgM and 0.83 (95 % CI 0.78-0.93) for IgG. Anti-HEV IgM and IgG seroprevalence in HIV-infected patients was 1.1 %, respectively. Our findings show a rather high HEV seroprevalence in patients with elevated liver enzymes in comparison to HIV-infected patients. Discordant findings by different methods stress the need to combine complementary methods and use a two-tier approach with prudent interpretation of reactive serological results for hepatitis E diagnosis.