English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Qualitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays based on immunochromatography are useful for mass diagnosis of COVID-19, even though their sensitivity is poor in comparison with RT-PCR assays. In addition, quantitative assays could improve antigenic test performance and allow testing with different specimens. Using quantitative assays, we tested 26 patients for viral RNA and N-antigen in respiratory samples, plasma and urine. This allowed us to compare the kinetics between the three compartments and to compare RNA and antigen concentrations in each. Our results showed the presence of N-antigen in respiratory (15/15, 100%), plasma (26/59, 44%) and urine (14/54, 28.9%) samples, whereas RNA was only detected in respiratory (15/15, 100%) and plasma (12/60, 20%) samples. We detected N-antigen in urine and plasma samples until the day 9 and day 13 post-inclusion, respectively. The antigen concentration was found to correlate with RNA levels in respiratory ( p &lt; 0.001) and plasma samples ( p &lt; 0.001). Finally, urinary antigen levels correlated with plasma levels ( p &lt; 0.001). Urine N-antigen detection could be part of the strategy for the late diagnosis and prognostic evaluation of COVID-19, given the ease and painlessness of sampling and the duration of antigen excretion in this biological compartment.

SARS-CoV-2 N-Antigen Quantification in Respiratory Tract, Plasma and Urine: Kinetics and Association with RT-qPCR Results