| Literature DB >> 33203441 |
Etheresia Pretorius1, Chantelle Venter2, Gert Jacobus Laubscher3, Petrus Johannes Lourens3, Janami Steenkamp4, Douglas B Kell5,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is a well-known comorbidity to COVID-19 and coagulopathies are a common accompaniment to both T2DM and COVID-19. In addition, patients with COVID-19 are known to develop micro-clots within the lungs. The rapid detection of COVID-19 uses genotypic testing for the presence of SARS-Cov-2 virus in nasopharyngeal swabs, but it can have a poor sensitivity. A rapid, host-based physiological test that indicated clotting severity and the extent of clotting pathologies in the individual who was infected or not would be highly desirable.Entities:
Keywords: Amyloid; COVID-19; Coagulopathies; Pathologies
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33203441 PMCID: PMC7670290 DOI: 10.1186/s12933-020-01165-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol ISSN: 1475-2840 Impact factor: 9.951
Fig. 1a–d Representative CT scans of a COVID-19 patient. Yellow arrows show ground glass opacities
Fig. 2a–d Representative fluorescence micrographs of platelet poor plasma from healthy individuals. Most signals are very weak, as shown by the arrows in a
Fig. 3a–f Representative fluorescence micrographs of platelet poor plasma from Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients
Fig. 4a–h Representative fluorescence micrographs of platelet poor plasma from COVID-19 patients
Fig. 5Fibrous or cellular deposits in the plasma smears from COVID-19 patients
Fig. 6a, b Amyloid % area in platelet poor plasma smears with mean and SEM (p = < 0.0001). a All controls, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and all COVID-19 patients. b All controls vs T2DM vs 10 mild and 10 moderate to severely ill COVID-19 patients
Sensitivity and specificity of % area amyloid (% amyloid was scaled for each sample type from low to high)
| Controls | T2DM | COVID-19 | Controls vs COVID-19 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.09% | T2DM Cut-off % amyloid area set as 3.05% | True positives | 17 × COVID-19 | |
| 0.11% | True negatives | 10 × Controls | ||
| 0.18% | False positives | 0 | ||
| 0.24% | False negatives | 3 × COVID-19 | ||
| 0.36% | Sensitivity | 85% | ||
| 0.37% | Specificity | 100% | ||
| 0.43% | T2DM vs COVID-19 | |||
| 0.48% | True positives | 9 × COVID-19 | ||
| 0.80% | True negatives | 10 × T2DM | ||
| 0.81% | False positives | 5 × T2DM | ||
| 0.96% | 1.07% | False negatives | 4 × COVID-19 | |
| 1.23% | Sensitivity | 69% | ||
| Control cut-off % amyloid area set as 1.3% | 1.47% | Specificity | 67% | |
| Controls vs T2DM | ||||
| 1.86% | True positives | 10 × T2DM | ||
| 2.12% | True negatives | 10 × Controls | ||
| 2.73% | False positives | 0 | ||
| 2.84% | False negatives | 0 | ||
| 3.00% | Sensitivity | 100% | ||
| 3.35% | Specificity | 100% | ||
| 3.60% | ||||
| 3.60% | ||||
| 3.64% | ||||
| 3.87% | ||||
| 4.03% | ||||
| 4.98% | ||||
| 5.08% | ||||
| 5.28% | ||||
| 6.73% | ||||
| 9.29% | ||||
| 9.87% | ||||
| 14.39% | ||||
| 16.29% | ||||
| 18.45% | ||||
| 18.69% | ||||
| 18.91% | ||||
| 21.34% | ||||
| 21.79% | ||||
| 26.05% | ||||
| 36.39% | ||||