Impact of Nutritional Assessment on the Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Non-albicans Candidemia: A Multicenter Study.

Several studies have demonstrated that malnutrition is a negative prognostic factor for clinical outcomes. However, there is limited evidence for the effect of malnutrition on clinical outcomes in patients with candidemia. We investigated the relationship between malnutrition and all-cause 28-day mortality among patients with non-albicans candidemia. Between July 2011 and June 2014, all adult patients with non-albicans candidemia, including C. tropicalis, C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis and so on, were enrolled. The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) scores were used to determine the patients' nutritional status before the onset of candidemia. A total of 378 patients were enrolled; 43.4% developed septic shock and 57.1% had a high risk of malnutrition (MUST ≥ 2). The all-cause 28-day mortality rate was 40.7%. The Cox proportional hazards model revealed that C. tropicalis (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.24-3.26; p = 0.005), Charlson comorbidity index (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.18; p = 0.007), Foley catheter use (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.21-1.35; p = 0.002), concomitant bacterial infections (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.11-2.17; p = 0.010), low platelet count (HR, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.45-5.91; p < 0.001), not receiving antifungals initially (HR, 4.73; 95% CI, 3.07-7.29; p < 0.001), and MUST ≥ 2 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.09-2.17; p = 0.014) were independently associated with all-cause 28-day mortality. A simple screening tool for nutritional assessment should be used for patients with non-albicans candidemia to detect early clinical deterioration, and a tailored nutritional care plan should be established for malnourished individuals, to improve their clinical outcomes.

Multicenter evaluation of four immunoassays for the performance of early diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody responses of patients with pneumonia in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Our study goals were to evaluate the diagnostic performance of four anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies tests and the differences in dynamic immune responses between COVID-19 patients with and without pneumonia. METHODS: We collected 184 serum samples from 70 consecutively qRT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients at four participating hospitals from 23 January 2020 to 30 September 2020. COVID-19 pneumonia was defined as the presence of new pulmonary infiltration. Serum samples were grouped by the duration after symptom onset on a weekly basis for antibody testing and analysis. The four immunoassays: Beckman SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM (Beckman Test), Siemens (ADVIA Centaur®) SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) (Siemens Test), SBC COVID-19 IgG ELISA (SBC Test) and EliA SARS-CoV-2-Sp1 IgG/IgM/IgA P2 Research (EliA Test) were used for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. RESULTS: The sensitivity of all tests reached 100% after 42 days of symptom onset. Siemens Test, the only test detecting total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, had the best performance in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (day 0-7: 77%; day 8-14: 95%) compared to the other 3 serological tests. All tests showed 100% specificity except SBC Test (98%). COVID-19 patients with pneumonia had significantly higher testing signal values than patients without pneumonia (all p values < 0.05, except EliA IgM Test). However, Siemens Test and SBC Test had highest probability in early prediction of the presence of COVID-19 pneumonia. CONCLUSION: Chronological analysis of immune response among COVID-19 patients with different serological tests provides important information in the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and prediction of the risk of pneumonia after infection.

Multicenter evaluation of two chemiluminescence and three lateral flow immunoassays for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody dynamic responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Taiwan.

This multicenter, retrospective study included 346 serum samples from 74 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 194 serum samples from non-COVID-19 patients to evaluate the performance of five anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests, i.e. two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs): Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Test (Roche Test) and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Test), and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs): Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo Test), ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (ASK Test), and Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Dynamiker Test). We found high diagnostic sensitivities (%, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for the Roche Test (97.4%, 93.4-99.0%), Abbott Test (94.0%, 89.1-96.8%), Wondfo Test (91.4%, 85.8-94.9%), ASK Test (97.4%, 93.4-99.0%), and Dynamiker Test (90.1%, 84.3-94.0%) after >21 days of symptom onset. Meanwhile, the diagnostic specificity was 99.0% (95% CI, 96.3-99.7%) for the Roche Test, 97.9% (95% CI, 94.8-99.2%) for the Abbott Test, and 100.0% (95% CI, 98.1-100.0%) for the three LFIAs. Cross-reactivity was observed in sera containing anti-cytomegalovirus (CMV) IgG/IgM antibodies and autoantibodies. No difference was observed in the time to seroconversion detection of the five serological tests. Specimens from patients with COVID-19 pneumonia demonstrated a shorter seroconversion time and higher chemiluminescent signal than those without pneumonia. Our data suggested that understanding the dynamic antibody response after COVID-19 infection and performance characteristics of different serological test are crucial for the appropriate interpretation of serological test result for the diagnosis and risk assessment of patient with COVID-19 infection.