4.0 Article

A 63-Year-Old Woman with a History of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Infection Who Was Seronegative and Treated with Convalescent Plasma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CASE REPORTS
卷 21, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
DOI: 10.12659/AJCR.927812

关键词

Antibodies; Coronavirus; Coronavirus Infections; COVID-19; Immunocompromised Host; Serologic Tests

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Unusual clinical course Background: This is a case report of an immunocompromised patient with a history of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and persistent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who was seronegative and successfully treated with convalescent plasma. Case Report: A 63-year-old woman with a past medical history of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in remission while on maintenance therapy with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, obinutuzumab, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via nasopharyngeal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing over 12 weeks and persistently tested seronegative for immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies using SARS-CoV-2 lgG chemiluminescent micropartide immunoassay technology. During this time, the patient experienced waxing and waning of symptoms, which included fever, myalgia, and non-productive cough, but never acquired severe respiratory distress. She was admitted to our hospital on illness day 88, and her symptoms resolved after the administration of convalescent plasma. Conclusions: As the understanding of the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve, we can currently only speculate about the occurrence of chronic infection vs. reinfection. The protective role of antibodies and their longevity against SARS-CoV-2 remain unclear. Since humoral immunity has an integral role in SARS-CoV-2 infection, various phase 3 vaccine trials are underway. In the context of this pandemic, the present case demonstrates the challenges in our understanding of testing and treating immunocompromised patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据