Refine
Document Type
- Article (7)
Language
- English (7)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (4)
- SARS-CoV-2 (4)
- influenza (2)
- out-patient paediatrics (2)
- respiratory tract infection (2)
- BNT162b2 (1)
- Cell-to-Cell Spread (1)
- ChAdOx1-S (1)
- Heterologous prime-boost (1)
- Immunogenicity (1)
Institute
- Medizin (7) (remove)
Aim: It can be challenging to distinguish COVID-19 in children from other common infections. We set out to determine the rate at which children consulting a primary care paediatrician with an acute infection are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and to compare distinct findings. Method: In seven out-patient clinics, children aged 0–13 years with any new respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms and presumed infection were invited to be tested for SARS-CoV-2. Factors that were correlated with testing positive were determined. Samples were collected from 25 January 2021 to 01 April 2021. Results: Seven hundred and eighty-three children participated in the study (median age 3 years and 0 months, range 1 month to 12 years and 11 months). Three hundred and fifty-eight were female (45.7%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 19 (2.4%). The most common symptoms in children with as well as without detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA were rhinitis, fever and cough. Known recent exposure to a case of COVID-19 was significantly correlated with testing positive, but symptoms or clinical findings were not. Conclusion: COVID-19 among the children with symptoms of an acute infection was uncommon, and the clinical presentation did not differ significantly between children with and without evidence of an infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Aim: It can be challenging to distinguish COVID-19 in children from other common infections. We set out to determine the rate at which children consulting a primary care paediatrician with an acute infection are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and to compare distinct findings. Method: In seven out-patient clinics, children aged 0–13 years with any new respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms and presumed infection were invited to be tested for SARS-CoV-2. Factors that were correlated with testing positive were determined. Samples were collected from 25 January 2021 to 01 April 2021. Results: Seven hundred and eighty-three children participated in the study (median age 3 years and 0 months, range 1 month to 12 years and 11 months). Three hundred and fifty-eight were female (45.7%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 19 (2.4%). The most common symptoms in children with as well as without detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA were rhinitis, fever and cough. Known recent exposure to a case of COVID-19 was significantly correlated with testing positive, but symptoms or clinical findings were not. Conclusion: COVID-19 among the children with symptoms of an acute infection was uncommon, and the clinical presentation did not differ significantly between children with and without evidence of an infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Objectives: Regarding reactogenicity and immunogenicity, heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens are considered as an alternative to conventional immunization schemes.
Methods: Individuals receiving either heterologous (ChAdOx1-S [AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK]/BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech, Mainz, Germany]; n = 306) or homologous (messenger RNA [mRNA]-1273 [Moderna, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA]; n = 139) vaccination were asked to participate when receiving their second dose. Reactogenicity was assessed after 1 month, immunogenicity after 1, 3, and/or 6 months, including a third dose, through SARS-CoV-2 antispike immunoglobulin G, surrogate virus neutralization test, and a plaque reduction neutralization test against the Delta (B.1.167.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529; BA.1) variants of concern.
Results: The overall reactogenicity was lower after heterologous vaccination. In both cohorts, SARS-CoV-2 antispike immunoglobulin G concentrations waned over time with the heterologous vaccination demonstrating higher neutralizing activity than homologous mRNA vaccination after 3 months to low neutralizing levels in the Delta plaque reduction neutralization test after 6 months. At this point, 3.2% of the heterologous and 11.4% of the homologous cohort yielded low neutralizing activity against Omicron. After a third dose of an mRNA vaccine, ≥99% of vaccinees demonstrated positive neutralizing activity against Delta. Depending on the vaccination scheme and against Omicron, 60% to 87.5% of vaccinees demonstrated positive neutralizing activity.
Conclusion: ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 vaccination demonstrated an acceptable reactogenicity and immunogenicity profile. A third dose of an mRNA vaccine is necessary to maintain neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2. However, variants of concern-adapted versions of the vaccines would be desirable.
Background: In recent months, Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 have become dominant in many regions of the world, and case numbers with Omicron subvariants BA.1 and BA.2 continue to increase. Due to numerous mutations in the spike protein, the efficacy of currently available vaccines, which are based on Wuhan-Hu 1 isolate of SARS-CoV-2, is reduced, leading to breakthrough infections. Efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy is also likely impaired.
Methods: In our in vitro study using A549-AT cells constitutively expressing ACE2 and TMPRSS2, we determined and compared the neutralizing capacity of vaccine-elicited sera, convalescent sera and monoclonal antibodies against authentic SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 compared with Delta.
Findings: Almost no neutralisation of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 was observed using sera from individuals vaccinated with two doses 6 months earlier, regardless of the type of vaccine taken. Shortly after the booster dose, most sera from triple BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals were able to neutralise both Omicron variants. In line with waning antibody levels three months after the booster, only weak residual neutralisation was observed for BA.1 (26%, n = 34, 0 median NT50) and BA.2 (44%, n = 34, 0 median NT50). In addition, BA.1 but not BA.2 was resistant to the neutralising monoclonal antibodies casirivimab/imdevimab, while BA.2 exhibited almost a complete evasion from the neutralisation induced by sotrovimab.
Interpretation: Both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants BA.1 and BA.2 escape antibody-mediated neutralisation elicited by vaccination, previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, and monoclonal antibodies. Waning immunity renders the majority of tested sera obtained three months after booster vaccination negative in BA.1 and BA.2 neutralisation. Omicron subvariant specific resistance to the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab emphasizes the importance of genotype-surveillance and guided application.
Funding: This study was supported in part by the Goethe-Corona-Fund of the Goethe University Frankfurt (M.W.) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (COVIDready; grant 02WRS1621C (M.W.).
The immune response is known to wane after vaccination with BNT162b2, but the role of age, morbidity and body composition is not well understood. We conducted a cross-sectional study in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) for the elderly. All study participants had completed two-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 five to 7 months before sample collection. In 298 residents (median age 86 years, range 75–101), anti-SARS-CoV-2 rector binding IgG antibody (anti-RBD-IgG) concentrations were low and inversely correlated with age (mean 51.60 BAU/ml). We compared the results to Health Care Workers (HCW) aged 18–70 years (n = 114, median age: 53 years), who had a higher mean anti-RBD-IgG concentration of 156.99 BAU/ml. Neutralization against the Delta variant was low in both groups (9.5% in LTCF residents and 31.6% in HCWs). The Charlson Comorbidity Index was inversely correlated with anti-RBD-IgG, but not the body mass index (BMI). A control group of 14 LTCF residents with known breakthrough infection had significant higher antibody concentrations (mean 3,199.65 BAU/ml), and 85.7% had detectable neutralization against the Delta variant. Our results demonstrate low but recoverable markers of immunity in LTCF residents five to 7 months after vaccination.
Background & Aims: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) cell entry is mediated by several cell surface receptors, including scavenger receptor class B type I (SR-BI). Oxidized low density lipoprotein (oxLDL) inhibits the interaction between HCV and SR-BI in a noncompetitive manner. We tested whether serum oxLDL levels correlate with sustained virologic response (SVR) rates after interferon-based treatment of chronic hepatitis C.
Methods: Baseline oxLDL was determined in 379 participants with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection from the INDIV-2 study using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The mechanistic in vitro studies used full-length and subgenomic HCV genomes replicating in hepatoma cells.
Results: In the multivariate analysis, oxLDL was found to be an independent predictor of SVR. Oxidized LDL did not correlate with markers of inflammation (alanine transaminase, ferritin), nor was serum oxLDL affected by exogenous interferon administration. Also, oxLDL did not alter the sensitivity of HCV replication to interferon. However, oxLDL was found to be a potent inhibitor of cell-to-cell spread of HCV between adjacent cells in vitro. It could thus reduce the rate at which new cells are infected by HCV through either the cell-free or cell-to-cell route. Finally, serum oxLDL was significantly associated with the estimated infected cell loss rate under treatment.
Conclusions: Oxidized LDL is a novel predictor of SVR after interferon-based therapy and may explain the previously observed association of LDL with SVR. Rather than being a marker of activated antiviral defenses it may improve chances of SVR by limiting spread of infection to naive cells through the cell-to-cell route.
Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR is a vital public health tool in the pandemic. Self-collected samples are increasingly used as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. Several studies suggested that they are sufficiently sensitive to be a useful alternative. However, there are limited data directly comparing several different types of self-collected materials to determine which material is preferable. A total of 102 predominantly symptomatic adults with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection self-collected native saliva, a tongue swab, a mid-turbinate nasal swab, saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad and gargle lavage, within 48 h of initial diagnosis. Sample collection was unsupervised. Both native saliva and gargling with tap water had high diagnostic sensitivity of 92.8% and 89.1%, respectively. Nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 85.1%, which was not significantly inferior to saliva (p = 0.092), but 16.6% of participants reported they had difficult in self-collection of this sample. A tongue swab and saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad had a significantly lower sensitivity of 74.2% and 70.2%, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity was not related to the presence of clinical symptoms or to age. When comparing self-collected specimens from different material, saliva, gargle lavage or mid-turbinate nasal swabs may be considered for most symptomatic patients. However, complementary experiments are required to verify that differences in performance observed among the five sampling modes were not attributed to collection impairment.