Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Document Type
- Article (61)
- Preprint (24)
- Contribution to a Periodical (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (87)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (87)
Keywords
- SARS-CoV-2 (29)
- COVID-19 (19)
- Omicron (5)
- PCR (5)
- coronavirus (4)
- antiviral therapy (3)
- vaccination (3)
- Autopsy (2)
- BA.1 (2)
- COVID-19 surveillance (2)
Aims: Patients with cardiovascular comorbidities have a significantly increased risk for a critical course of COVID-19. As the SARS-CoV2 virus enters cells via the angiotensin-converting enzyme receptor II (ACE2), drugs which interact with the renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) were suspected to influence disease severity.
Methods and results: We analyzed 1946 consecutive patients with cardiovascular comorbidities or hypertension enrolled in one of the largest European COVID-19 registries, the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) registry. Here, we show that angiotensin II receptor blocker intake is associated with decreased mortality in patients with COVID-19 [OR 0.75 (95% CI 0,59–0.96; p = 0.013)]. This effect was mainly driven by patients, who presented in an early phase of COVID-19 at baseline [OR 0,64 (95% CI 0,43–0,96; p = 0.029)]. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of death in patients on an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (n = 33/318;10,4%) compared to patients using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) (n = 60/348;17,2%) or patients who received neither an ACE-inhibitor nor an ARB at baseline in the uncomplicated phase (n = 90/466; 19,3%; p<0.034). Patients taking an ARB were significantly less frequently reaching the mortality predicting threshold for leukocytes (p<0.001), neutrophils (p = 0.002) and the inflammatory markers CRP (p = 0.021), procalcitonin (p = 0.001) and IL-6 (p = 0.049). ACE2 expression levels in human lung samples were not altered in patients taking RAAS modulators.
Conclusion: These data suggest a beneficial effect of ARBs on disease severity in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and COVID-19, which is linked to dampened systemic inflammatory activity.
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: International travel poses the risk of importing SARS-CoV-2 infections and introducing new viral variants into the country of destination. Established measures include mandatory quarantine with the opportunity to abbreviate it with a negative rapid antigen test (RAT).
Methods: A total of 1,488 returnees were tested for SARS-CoV-2 with both PCR and RAT no earlier than 5 days after arrival. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the RAT. Positive samples were evaluated for infectivity in vitro in a cell culture outgrowth assay. We tracked if participants who tested negative were reported positive within 2 weeks of the initial test.
Results: Potential infectiousness was determined based on symptom onset analysis, resulting in a sensitivity of the antigen test of 89% in terms of infectivity. The specificity was 100%. All positive outgrowth assays were preceded by a positive RAT, indicating that all participants with proven in vitro infectivity were correctly identified. None of the negative participants tested positive during the follow-up.
Conclusions: RAT no earlier than the 5th day after arrival was a reliable method for detecting infectious travellers and can be recommended as an appropriate method for managing SARS-CoV-2 travel restrictions. Compliance to the regulations and a high standard of test quality must be ensured.
Purpose: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replicates predominantly in the upper respiratory tract and is primarily transmitted by droplets and aerosols. Taking the medical history for typical COVID-19 symptoms and PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing have become established as screening procedures. The aim of this work was to describe the clinical appearance of SARS-CoV-2-PCR positive patients and to determine the SARS-CoV-2 contact risk for health care workers (HCW).
Methods: The retrospective study included n = 2283 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from n = 1725 patients with otorhinolaryngological (ORL) diseases performed from March to November 2020 prior to inpatient treatment. In addition, demographic data and medical history were assessed.
Results: n = 13 PCR tests (0.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The positive rate showed a significant increase during the observation period (p < 0.01). None of the patients had clinical symptoms that led to a suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 before PCR testing. The patients were either asymptomatic (n = 4) or had symptoms that were interpreted as symptoms typical of the ORL disease or secondary diagnoses (n = 9).
Conclusion: The identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is a considerable challenge in clinical practice. Our findings illustrate that taking a medical history alone is of limited value and cannot replace molecular SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially for patients with ORL diseases. Our data also demonstrate that there is a high probability of contact with SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in everyday clinical practice, so that the use of personal protective equipment, even in apparently “routine cases”, is highly recommended.
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 ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is partly under control by vaccination. However, highly potent and safe antiviral drugs for SARS-CoV-2 are still needed to avoid development of severe COVID-19. We report the discovery of a small molecule, Z-Tyr-Ala-CHN2, which was identified in a cell-based antiviral screen. The molecule exerts sub-micromolar antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, and human coronavirus 229E. Time-of-addition studies reveal that Z-Tyr-Ala-CHN2 acts at the early phase of the infection cycle, which is in line with the observation that the molecule inhibits cathepsin L. This results in antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 in VeroE6, A549-hACE2, and HeLa-hACE2 cells, but not in Caco-2 cells or primary human nasal epithelial cells since the latter two cell types also permit entry via transmembrane protease serine subtype 2 (TMPRSS2). Given their cell-specific activity, cathepsin L inhibitors still need to prove their value in the clinic; nevertheless, the activity profile of Z-Tyr-Ala-CHN2 makes it an interesting tool compound for studying the biology of coronavirus entry and replication.
Although vaccines are currently used to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, treatment options are urgently needed for those who cannot be vaccinated and for future outbreaks involving new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strains or coronaviruses not covered by current vaccines. Thus far, few existing antivirals are known to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 and clinically successful against COVID-19. As part of an immediate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a high-throughput, high content imaging–based SARS-CoV-2 infection assay was developed in VeroE6 African green monkey kidney epithelial cells expressing a stable enhanced green fluorescent protein (VeroE6-eGFP cells) and was used to screen a library of 5676 compounds that passed Phase 1 clinical trials. Eight drugs (nelfinavir, RG-12915, itraconazole, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, sematilide, remdesivir, and doxorubicin) were identified as inhibitors of in vitro anti–SARS-CoV-2 activity in VeroE6-eGFP and/or Caco-2 cell lines. However, apart from remdesivir, toxicity and pharmacokinetic data did not support further clinical development of these compounds for COVID-19 treatment.
Although vaccines are currently used to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, treatment options are urgently needed for those who cannot be vaccinated and for future outbreaks involving new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strains or coronaviruses not covered by current vaccines. Thus far, few existing antivirals are known to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 and clinically successful against COVID-19.
As part of an immediate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a high-throughput, high content imaging–based SARS-CoV-2 infection assay was developed in VeroE6-eGFP cells and was used to screen a library of 5676 compounds that passed phase 1 clinical trials. Eight candidates (nelfinavir, RG-12915, itraconazole, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, sematilide, remdesivir, and doxorubicin) with in vitro anti–SARS-CoV-2 activity in VeroE6-eGFP and/or Caco-2 cell lines were identified. However, apart from remdesivir, toxicity and pharmacokinetic data did not support further clinical development of these compounds for COVID-19 treatment.
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.