Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Document Type
- Article (46)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (48)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (48)
Keywords
- SARS-CoV-2 (48) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (48) (remove)
Aims: SARS-CoV-2 is a single-stranded RNA virus which is part of the ß-coronavirus family (like SARS 2002 and MERS 2012). The high prevalence of hospitalization and mortality, in addition to the lack of vaccines and therapeutics, forces scientists and clinicians around the world to evaluate new therapeutic options. One strategy is the repositioning of already known drugs, which were approved drugs for other indications.
Subject and method: SARS-CoV-2 entry inhibitors, RNA polymerase inhibitors, and protease inhibitors seem to be valuable targets of research. At the beginning of the pandemic, the ClinicalTrials.gov webpage listed n=479 clinical trials related to the antiviral treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (01.04.2020, “SARS-CoV-2,” “COVID-19,” “antivirals,” “therapy”), of which n=376 are still accessible online in January 2021 (10.01.2021). Taking into account further studies not listed in the CTG webpage, this narrative review appraises HIV protease inhibitors and nucleos(t)ide RNA polymerase inhibitors as promising candidates for the treatment of COVID-19.
Results: Lopinavir/ritonavir, darunavir/cobicistat, remdesivir, tenofovir-disoproxilfumarate, favipriravir, and sofosbuvir are evaluated in clinical studies worldwide. Study designs show a high variability and results often are contradictory. Remdesivir is the drug, which is deployed in nearly 70% of the reviewed clinical trials, followed by lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, ribavirine, and sofosbuvir.
Discussion: This review discusses the pharmacological/clinical background and questions the rationale and study design of clinical trials with already approved HIV protease inhibitors and nucleos(t)ide RNA polymerase inhibitors which are repositioned during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic worldwide. Proposals are made for future study design and drug repositioning of approved antiretroviral compounds.
Introduction: From the beginning of the corona pandemic until August 19, 2020, more than 21,989,366 cases have been reported worldwide – 228,495 in Germany alone, including 12,648 children aged 0–14. In many countries, the proportion of infected children in the total population is comparatively low; in addition, children often have no or milder symptoms and are less likely to transmit the pathogen to adults than the other way round. Based on the registration data in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, the symptoms of children in comparison with adults and the likely routes of transmission are presented below.
Materials and methods: The documentation of the mandatory reports includes personal data (name, date of birth, gender, place of residence), disease characteristics (date of report, date of onset of the disease, symptoms), possible contact persons (family, others) and i.a. possible activity or care in children’s community facilities. All reports were viewed, especially with regard to likely transmission routes.
Results: From March 1 to July 31, 2020, 1,977 infected people were reported, including 138 children between the ages of 0 and 14 years. Children had fewer and milder symptoms than adults. None of the children experienced severe respiratory symptoms or the need for ventilation. 62% of the children had no symptoms at all (19% adults), 5% of the children were hospitalized (24% adults), and none of the children died (3.8% adults).
After excluding a cluster of 34 children from refugee accommodations and 14 children from a parish, 78% of the remaining 90 children had been infected by an adult within the family, and only 4% were likely to have a reverse transmission route. In 5.5% of cases, transmission in a community facility was likely.
Discussion: The results of the registration data from Frankfurt am Main, Germany confirm the results published in other countries: Children are less likely to become infected, and if infected, their symptoms are less severe than in adults, and they are apparently not the main drivers of virus transmission. Therefore, scientific medical associations strongly recommend reopening schools.
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.
Background and purpose: During acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, neurological signs, symptoms and complications occur. We aimed to assess their clinical relevance by evaluating real-world data from a multinational registry. Methods: We analyzed COVID-19 patients from 127 centers, diagnosed between January 2020 and February 2021, and registered in the European multinational LEOSS (Lean European Open Survey on SARS-Infected Patients) registry. The effects of prior neurological diseases and the effect of neurological symptoms on outcome were studied using multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 6537 COVID-19 patients (97.7% PCR-confirmed) were analyzed, of whom 92.1% were hospitalized and 14.7% died. Commonly, excessive tiredness (28.0%), headache (18.5%), nausea/emesis (16.6%), muscular weakness (17.0%), impaired sense of smell (9.0%) and taste (12.8%), and delirium (6.7%) were reported. In patients with a complicated or critical disease course (53%) the most frequent neurological complications were ischemic stroke (1.0%) and intracerebral bleeding (ICB; 2.2%). ICB peaked in the critical disease phase (5%) and was associated with the administration of anticoagulation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Excessive tiredness (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20–1.68) and prior neurodegenerative diseases (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07–1.63) were associated with an increased risk of an unfavorable outcome. Prior cerebrovascular and neuroimmunological diseases were not associated with an unfavorable short-term outcome of COVID-19. Conclusion: Our data on mostly hospitalized COVID-19 patients show that excessive tiredness or prior neurodegenerative disease at first presentation increase the risk of an unfavorable short-term outcome. ICB in critical COVID-19 was associated with therapeutic interventions, such as anticoagulation and ECMO, and thus may be an indirect complication of a life-threatening systemic viral infection.
Background: SARS-CoV-2 is one of the most threatening pandemics in human history. As of the date of this analysis, it had claimed about 2 million lives worldwide, and the number is rising sharply. Governments, societies, and scientists are equally challenged under this burden. Objective: This study aimed to map global coronavirus research in 2020 according to various influencing factors to highlight incentives or necessities for further research. Methods: The application of established and advanced bibliometric methods combined with the visualization technique of density-equalizing mapping provided a global picture of incentives and efforts on coronavirus research in 2020. Countries’ funding patterns and their epidemiological and socioeconomic characteristics as well as their publication performance data were included. Results: Research output exploded in 2020 with momentum, including citation and networking parameters. China and the United States were the countries with the highest publication performance. Globally, however, publication output correlated significantly with COVID-19 cases. Research funding has also increased immensely. Conclusions: Nonetheless, the abrupt decline in publication efforts following previous coronavirus epidemics should demonstrate to global researchers that they should not lose interest even after containment, as the next epidemiological challenge is certain to come. Validated reporting worldwide and the inclusion of low-income countries are additionally important for a successful future research strategy.
Background: The factors driving the late phase of COVID-19 are still poorly understood. However, autoimmunity is an evolving theme in COVID-19’s pathogenesis. Additionally, deregulation of human retroelements (RE) is found in many viral infections, and has also been reported in COVID-19.
Results: Unexpectedly, coronaviruses (CoV) – including SARS-CoV-2 – harbour many RE-identical sequences (up to 35 base pairs), and some of these sequences are part of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes associated to COVID-19 severity. Furthermore, RE are expressed in healthy controls and human cells and become deregulated after SARS-CoV-2 infection, showing mainly changes in long interspersed nuclear element (LINE1) expression, but also in endogenous retroviruses.
Conclusion: CoV and human RE share coding sequences, which are targeted by antibodies in COVID-19 and thus could induce an autoimmune loop by molecular mimicry.
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.
The plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) is a preferred method for the detection of functional, SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibodies from serum samples. Alternatively, surrogate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) using ACE2 as the target structure for the detection of neutralization-competent antibodies have been developed. They are capable of high throughput, have a short turnaround time, and can be performed under standard laboratory safety conditions. However, there are very limited data on their clinical performance and how they compare to the PRNT. We evaluated three surrogate immunoassays (GenScript SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test Kit (GenScript Biotech, Piscataway Township, NJ, USA), the TECO® SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Assay (TECOmedical AG, Sissach, Switzerland), and the Leinco COVID-19 ImmunoRank™ Neutralization MICRO-ELISA (Leinco Technologies, Fenton, MO, USA)) and one automated quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein-based IgG antibody assay (Abbott GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany) by testing 78 clinical samples, including several follow-up samples of six BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer, Mainz, Germany/New York, NY, USA) vaccinated individuals. Using the PRNT as a reference method, the overall sensitivity of the examined assays ranged from 93.8 to 100% and specificity ranged from 73.9 to 91.3%. Weighted kappa demonstrated a substantial to almost perfect agreement. The findings of our study allow these assays to be considered when a PRNT is not available. However, the latter still should be the preferred choice. For optimal clinical performance, the cut-off value of the TECO assay should be individually adapted.