Relative COVID-19 Viral Persistence and Antibody Kinetics
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
A total of 15 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients were admitted to our hospital during the in-itial outbreak in Taiwan. The average time of virus clearance was delayed in seven patients, 24.14 ± 4.33 days compared to 10.25 ± 0.56 days post-symptom onset (PSO) in the other eight pa-tients. There was strong antibody response in patients with viral persistence at the pharynx, with peak values of serum antibody 677.2 ± 217.8 vs. 76.70 ± 32.11 in patients with delayed versus rapid virus clearance. The patients with delayed viral clearance had excessive antibodies of compromised quality in an early stage with the delay in peak virus neutralization efficacy, 34.14 ± 7.15 versus 12.50 ± 2.35 days PSO in patients with rapid virus clearance. Weak antibody re-sponse of patients with rapid viral clearance was also effective, with substantial and comparable neutralization efficacy, 35.70 ± 8.78 versus 41.37 ± 11.49 of patients with delayed virus clearance. Human Cytokine 48-Plex Screening of the serial sera samples revealed elevated concentrations of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines in a deceased patient with delayed virus clear-ance and severe disease. The levels were comparatively less in the other two patients who suf-fered from severe disease but eventually survived.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.01.20143917: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.01.20143917: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-