Institutes
Refine
Document Type
- Article (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Antibody therapy (1)
- Bamlanivimab (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Casirivimab (1)
- Diagnostic tests (1)
- Hepatitis C (1)
- Hepatitis C antibodies (1)
- Hepatitis C antigens (1)
- Imdevimab (1)
- Immunoassay (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
Background: School attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic is intensely debated.
Aim: In November 2020, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 infections and seroreactivity in 24 randomly selected school classes and connected households in Berlin, Germany.
Methods: We collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs and blood samples, examining SARS-CoV-2 infection and IgG antibodies by RT-PCR and ELISA. Household members self-swabbed. We assessed individual and institutional prevention measures. Classes with SARS-CoV-2 infection and connected households were retested after 1 week.
Results: We examined 1,119 participants, including 177 primary and 175 secondary school students, 142 staff and 625 household members. SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in eight classes, affecting each 1–2 individuals. Infection prevalence was 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2–5.0; 9/338), 1.4% (95% CI: 0.2–5.1; 2/140), and 2.3% (95% CI: 1.3–3.8; 14/611) among students, staff and household members. Six of nine infected students were asymptomatic at testing. We detected IgG antibodies in 2.0% (95%CI: 0.8–4.1; 7/347), 1.4% (95% CI: 0.2–5.0; 2/141) and 1.4% (95% CI: 0.6–2.7; 8/576). Prevalence increased with inconsistent facemask-use in school, walking to school, and case-contacts outside school. For three of nine households with infection(s), origin in school seemed possible. After 1 week, no school-related secondary infections appeared in affected classes; the attack rate in connected households was 1.1%.
Conclusion: School attendance under rigorously implemented preventive measures seems reasonable. Balancing risks and benefits of school closures need to consider possible spill-over infection into households. Deeper insight is required into the infection risks due to being a schoolchild vs attending school.
Background: In the pandemic, testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by real-time polymerase chain reaction is one of the pillars on which countermeasures are based. Factors limiting the output of laboratories interfere with the effectiveness of public health measures. Conserving reagents by pooling samples in low-probability settings is proposed but may cause dilution and loss of sensitivity. Blood transfusion services had experience in performance of high throughput nucleic acid testing (NAT) analysis and can support the national health system by screening of the inhabitants for SARS-COV-2.
Methods: We evaluated a new approach of a multiple-swab method by simultaneously incubating multiple respiratory swabs in a single tube. Analytical sensitivity was constant up to a total number of 50 swabs. It was consequently applied in the testing of 50 symptomatic patients (5-sample pools) as well as 100 asymptomatic residents of a nursing home (10-sample pools).
Results: The novel method did not cause false-negative results with nonsignificantly differing cycle threshold values between single-swab and multiple-swab NAT. In two routine applications, all minipools containing positive patient samples were correctly identified.
Conclusions: The new method enables countries to increase the total number of testing significantly. The multiple-swab method is able to screen system relevant groups of employees frequently. The example in Germany shows that blood transfusion services can support general health systems with their experience in NAT and their high-throughput instruments. Screening of a huge number of inhabitants is currently the only option to prevent a second infection wave and enable exit strategies in many countries.
Background: The diagnostic accuracy of the Elecsys® HCV Duo antigen-antibody combination immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics GmbH) was evaluated for the detection of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, versus commercially available comparators.
Methods: This multicenter study (August 2020–March 2021) assessed the specificity of the Elecsys HCV Duo immunoassay and comparator assays in blood donor and routine clinical laboratory samples; sensitivity was determined in confirmed HCV-positive samples and seroconversion panels. The Elecsys HCV Duo immunoassay was compared with the Monolisa HCV Ag-Ab ULTRA V2, Murex HCV Ag/Ab Combination and ARCHITECT HCV Ag assays, as well as nucleic acid testing (NAT). The antibody (anti-HCV) module of the Elecsys HCV Duo immunoassay was compared with the Elecsys Anti-HCV II, Alinity s Anti-HCV, ARCHITECT Anti-HCV and RIBA HCV 3.0 SIA assays.
Results: The specificity of the Elecsys HCV Duo immunoassay was 99.94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 99.89–99.97) and 99.92% (95% CI, 99.71–99.99) in blood donor (n = 20,634) and routine clinical laboratory samples (n = 2531), respectively. The specificity of the Elecsys HCV Duo immunoassay was similar or better than comparator assays. The sensitivity of the Elecsys HCV Duo immunoassay in confirmed HCV-positive samples (n = 257) was 99.6%. In seroconversion panels, the Elecsys HCV Duo immunoassay detected infections earlier (2.2–21.9 days) than all but one of the comparator assays and detected HCV 1.8 days later than NAT.
Conclusions: The Elecsys HCV Duo immunoassay shows high diagnostic accuracy, reduces the diagnostic window, and could be used when NAT is not possible.
Objectives In this early retrospective cohort study, a total of 26 patients with SARS-CoV-2 were treated with bamlanivimab or casirivimab/imdevimab, and the reduction of the viral load associated with the developed clinical symptoms was analyzed.
Methods: Patients in the intervention groups received bamlanivimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. Patients without treatment served as control. Outcomes were assessed by clinical symptoms and change in log viral load from baseline based on the cycle threshold over a period of 18 days.
Results: Median log viral load decline was higher in both intervention groups after 3 and 6 days compared to control. However, at later time points, the decline of the viral load was more distinct in the control group. Mild symptoms of COVID-19 were observed in 6.3% of the intervention groups and in no patient of the control. No patients treated with bamlanivimab, 18.8% treated with casirivimab/imdevimab, and 14.2% in the control group developed moderate symptoms. Severe symptoms were recorded only in the control group (14.2%), including one related death.
Conclusion: Treatment with monoclonal SARS-CoV-2 antibodies seems to accelerate decline of virus loads, especially in the first 6 days after administration, compared to control. This may be associated with a reduced likeliness of a severe course of COVID-19.