Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
JCI Insight ; 5(18)2020 09 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32796155

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of potential immunity against the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus that emerged in 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential for health, as well as social and economic recovery. Generation of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 (seroconversion) may inform on acquired immunity from prior exposure, and antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (S-RBD) are speculated to neutralize virus infection. Some serology assays rely solely on SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (N-protein) as the antibody detection antigen; however, whether such immune responses correlate with S-RBD response and COVID-19 immunity remains unknown. Here, we generated a quantitative serological ELISA using recombinant S-RBD and N-protein for the detection of circulating antibodies in 138 serial serum samples from 30 reverse transcription PCR-confirmed, SARS-CoV-2-hospitalized patients, as well as 464 healthy and non-COVID-19 serum samples that were collected between June 2017 and June 2020. Quantitative detection of IgG antibodies against the 2 different viral proteins showed a moderate correlation. Antibodies against N-protein were detected at a rate of 3.6% in healthy and non-COVID-19 sera collected during the pandemic in 2020, whereas 1.9% of these sera were positive for S-RBD. Approximately 86% of individuals positive for S-RBD-binding antibodies exhibited neutralizing capacity, but only 74% of N-protein-positive individuals exhibited neutralizing capacity. Collectively, our studies show that detection of N-protein-binding antibodies does not always correlate with presence of S-RBD-neutralizing antibodies and caution against the extensive use of N-protein-based serology testing for determination of potential COVID-19 immunity.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Betacoronavirus/physiology , Coronavirus Infections , Nucleocapsid/immunology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Adaptive Immunity/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/analysis , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/analysis , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Protein Binding , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroconversion , Serologic Tests/methods
2.
Int J Antimicrob Agents ; 45(5): 541-4, 2015 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25665726

ABSTRACT

Cefepime is an antibiotic commonly used in nosocomial infections. The objective of this study was to elucidate the relationship between cefepime exposure and clinical outcome in patients with Gram-negative bacterial pneumonia. A previously published population pharmacokinetic model of cefepime was validated in 12 adult patients with normal renal function by measuring plasma concentrations at steady-state. Additionally, clinical outcomes for 33 patients with Gram-negative bacterial pneumonia who received cefepime monotherapy were determined. The free minimum concentration (fCmin) to MIC ratio for each patient was determined by conditioning the validated pharmacokinetic model using patient-specific creatinine clearance (CLCr), dosing regimen and cefepime MIC of the organism isolated, and was subsequently correlated with clinical failure. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to determine the most significant drug exposure breakpoint. Mean±S.D. CLCr and cefepime Cmin in the 12 patients were 87.5±21.2mL/min and 6.2±3.8mg/L, respectively. In comparison, the Cmin predicted by the pharmacokinetic model was 5.8mg/L using a CLCr of 90mL/min. MICs of organisms ranged from 0.5mg/L to 8mg/L. Percent time free drug above MIC of 100% was achieved in 32/33 patients, but 12 patients experienced clinical failure. CART analysis determined patients with an fCmin/MIC≥2.1 had a significantly lower risk of clinical failure (OR=0.11, 95% CI 0.02-0.67; P=0.017). The fCmin/MIC ratio is a useful predictor of clinical failure in Gram-negative bacterial pneumonia. The clinical utility of fCmin/MIC in therapeutic drug monitoring should be further explored.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacokinetics , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Cephalosporins/pharmacokinetics , Cephalosporins/therapeutic use , Plasma/chemistry , Pneumonia, Bacterial/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Cefepime , Cephalosporins/pharmacology , Creatinine/metabolism , Female , Humans , Male , Metabolic Clearance Rate , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Bacterial/microbiology , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL