Refine
Document Type
- Article (62)
Has Fulltext
- yes (62)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (62)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (62) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (62) (remove)
Background: Antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2 requires an understanding of its variation, course, and duration.
Methods: Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated over 5–430 days on 828 samples across COVID-19 severity levels, for total antibody (TAb), IgG, IgA, IgM, neutralizing antibody (NAb), antibody avidity, and for receptor-binding-domain (RBD), spike (S), or nucleoprotein (N). Specificity was determined on 676 pre-pandemic samples.
Results: Sensitivity at 30–60 days post symptom onset (pso) for TAb-S/RBD, TAb-N, IgG-S, IgG-N, IgA-S, IgM-RBD, and NAb was 96.6%, 99.5%, 89.7%, 94.3%, 80.9%, 76.9% and 92.8%, respectively. Follow-up 430 days pso revealed: TAb-S/RBD increased slightly (100.0%); TAb-N decreased slightly (97.1%); IgG-S and IgA-S decreased moderately (81.4%, 65.7%); NAb remained positive (94.3%), slightly decreasing in activity after 300 days; there was correlation with IgG-S (Rs = 0.88) and IgA-S (Rs = 0.71); IgG-N decreased significantly from day 120 (15.7%); IgM-RBD dropped after 30–60 days (22.9%). High antibody avidity developed against S/RBD steadily with time in 94.3% of patients after 430 days. This correlated with persistent antibody detection depending on antibody-binding efficiency of the test design. Severe COVID-19 correlated with earlier and higher antibody response, mild COVID-19 was heterogeneous with a wide range of antibody reactivities. Specificity of the tests was ≥99%, except for IgA (96%).
Conclusion: Sensitivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays was determined by test design, target antigen, antibody avidity, and COVID-19 severity. Sustained antibody detection was mainly determined by avidity progression for RBD and S. Testing by TAb and for S/RBD provided the highest sensitivity and longest detection duration of 14 months so far.
Previous studies reported on the safety and applicability of mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) to ameliorate pulmonary inflammation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Thus, multiple clinical trials assessing the potential of MSCs for COVID-19 treatment are underway. Yet, as SARS-inducing coronaviruses infect stem/progenitor cells, it is unclear whether MSCs could be infected by SARS-CoV-2 upon transplantation to COVID-19 patients. We found that MSCs from bone marrow, amniotic fluid, and adipose tissue carry angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane protease serine subtype 2 at low levels on the cell surface under steady-state and inflammatory conditions. We did not observe SARS-CoV-2 infection or replication in MSCs at steady state under inflammatory conditions, or in direct contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected Caco-2 cells. Further, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 production in MSCs was not impaired in the presence of SARS-CoV-2. We show that MSCs are resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection and retain their immunomodulation potential, supporting their potential applicability for COVID-19 treatment.
The new variant of concern (VOC) of SARS-CoV-2, Omicron (B.1.1.529), is genetically very different from other VOCs. We compared Omicron with the preceding VOC Delta (B.1.617.2) and the wildtype (wt) strain (B.1) with respect to their interactions with the antiviral interferon (IFN-alpha/beta) response in infected cells. Our data indicate that IFN induction by Omicron is low and comparable to the wt, whereas Delta showed an increased IFN induction. However, Omicron exceeded both the wt and the Delta strain with respect to the ability to withstand the antiviral state imposed by IFN-alpha.
Hintergrund: Ab Frühjahr 2020 kam es zur weltweiten Verbreitung von SARS-CoV‑2 mit der heute als erste Welle der Pandemie bezeichneten Phase ab März 2020. Diese resultierte an vielen Kliniken in Umstrukturierungen und Ressourcenverschiebungen. Ziel unserer Arbeit war die Erfassung der Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf die universitäre Hals-Nasen-Ohren(HNO)-Heilkunde für die Forschung, Lehre und Weiterbildung. Material und Methoden: Die Direktorinnen und Direktoren der 39 Universitäts-HNO-Kliniken in Deutschland wurden mithilfe einer strukturierten Online-Befragung zu den Auswirkungen der Pandemie im Zeitraum von März bis April 2020 auf die Forschung, Lehre und die Weiterbildung befragt. Ergebnisse: Alle 39 Direktorinnen und Direktoren beteiligten sich an der Umfrage. Hiervon gaben 74,4 % (29/39) an, dass es zu einer Verschlechterung ihrer Forschungstätigkeit infolge der Pandemie gekommen sei. Von 61,5 % (24/39) wurde berichtet, dass pandemiebezogene Forschungsaspekte aufgegriffen wurden. Von allen Kliniken wurde eine Einschränkung der Präsenzlehre berichtet und 97,5 % (38/39) führten neue digitale Lehrformate ein. Im Beobachtungszeitraum sahen 74,4 % der Klinikdirektoren die Weiterbildung der Assistenten nicht gefährdet. Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse geben einen Einblick in die heterogenen Auswirkungen der Pandemie. Die kurzfristige Bearbeitung pandemiebezogener Forschungsthemen und die Einführung innovativer digitaler Konzepte für die studentische Lehre belegt eindrücklich das große innovative Potenzial und die schnelle Reaktionsfähigkeit der HNO-Universitätskliniken, um auch während der Pandemie ihre Aufgaben in der Forschung, Lehre und Weiterbildung bestmöglich zu erfüllen.
Hintergrund: Eine standardisierte Erhebung von COVID-19-Infektionen bei Gesundheitspersonal während der laufenden Pandemie war und ist nicht gegeben. Vor allem der Anteil von arbeitsbedingten Infektionen beim Gesundheitspersonal und die Frage, welche Arbeitnehmer/-innen darunter am meisten gefährdet sind, bleiben unklar.
Ziel: Ziel dieser Studie war es, die gemeldeten COVID-19-Fälle beim Gesundheitspersonal in Frankfurt/Main in den ersten 6 Monaten der Pandemie zu analysieren, die Zahl der arbeitsbedingten Infektionen zu ermitteln und somit eine bessere Interpretation der durch das Robert Koch-Institut veröffentlichten Daten zu ermöglichen.
Methoden: Die Daten des Gesundheitsamts Frankfurt/Main wurden für den Zeitraum vom 01.03. bis zum 31.08.2020 betrachtet und medizinisches Personal für eine Querschnittserhebung im Rahmen einer Umfrage rekrutiert. Drei Subgruppen wurden nach Ort des Infektionskontakts, am Arbeitsplatz, im Privaten und unbekannt, unterteilt und analysiert.
Ergebnisse: Medizinisches Personal machte 11,8 % (319/2700) aller gemeldeten COVID-19-Fälle in Frankfurt/Main im untersuchten Zeitraum aus. In der Umfrage gaben 47,2 % der Befragten an, dass ihre Infektion am Arbeitsplatz erworben wurde. Es zeigte sich eine Assoziation von Kontakt zu COVID-19-Patient/-innen sowie der Beschäftigung auf einer internistischen Station und einer arbeitsbedingten Infektion. Ersichtlich wurde außerdem ein Zusammenhang zwischen mutmaßlichen Infektionen am Arbeitsplatz und folglich gestellten Verdachtsanzeigen auf Berufskrankheit.
Diskussion und Fazit: Gesundheitsämter sind in der Lage, relevante Daten von arbeitsbedingten Transmissionen in Berufen und Arbeitsplätzen im Gesundheitswesen zu erheben, und sollten standardisierte Daten zu infiziertem Gesundheitspersonal generieren. Diese Daten sind notwendig, um gezielte Maßnahmen der Infektionsprävention zu ergreifen, die Gesundheitspersonal und ihre Patient/-innen schützen.
Patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) commonly show abnormalities of liver tests (LTs) of undetermined cause. Considering drugs as tentative culprits, the current systematic review searched for published COVID-19 cases with suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and established diagnosis using the diagnostic algorithm of RUCAM (Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method). Data worldwide on DILI cases assessed by RUCAM in COVID-19 patients were sparse. A total of 6/200 reports with initially suspected 996 DILI cases in COVID-19 patients and using all RUCAM-based DILI cases allowed for a clear description of clinical features of RUCAM-based DILI cases among COVID-19 patients: (1) The updated RUCAM published in 2016 was equally often used as the original RUCAM of 1993, with both identifying DILI and other liver diseases as confounders; (2) RUCAM also worked well in patients treated with up to 18 drugs and provided for most DILI cases a probable or highly probable causality level for drugs; (3) DILI was preferentially caused by antiviral drugs given empirically due to their known therapeutic efficacy in other virus infections; (4) hepatocellular injury was more often reported than cholestatic or mixed injury; (5) maximum LT values were found for alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 1.541 U/L and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) 1.076 U/L; (6) the ALT/AST ratio was variable and ranged from 0.4 to 1.4; (7) the mean or median age of the COVID-19 patients with DILI ranged from 54.3 to 56 years; (8) the ratio of males to females was 1.8–3.4:1; (9) outcome was favorable for most patients, likely due to careful selection of the drugs and quick cessation of drug treatment with emerging DILI, but it was fatal in 19 patients; (10) countries reporting RUCAM-based DILI cases in COVID-19 patients included China, India, Japan, Montenegro, and Spain; (11) robust estimation of the percentage contribution of RUCAM-based DILI for the increased LTs in COVID-19 patients is outside of the current scope. In conclusion, RUCAM-based DILI with its clinical characteristics in COVID-19 patients and its classification as a confounding variable is now well defined, requiring a new correct description of COVID-19 features by removing DILI characteristics as confounders.
The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of the acute respiratory disease COVID-19, which has become a global concern due to its rapid spread. Meanwhile, increased demand for testing has led to a shortage of reagents and supplies and compromised the performance of diagnostic laboratories in many countries. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend multi-step RT-PCR assays using multiple primer and probe pairs, which might complicate the interpretation of the test results, especially for borderline cases. In this study, we describe an alternative RT-PCR approach for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA that can be used for the probe-based detection of clinical isolates in diagnostics as well as in research labs using a low-cost SYBR green method. For the evaluation, we used samples from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and performed RT-PCR assays along with successive dilutions of RNA standards to determine the limit of detection. We identified an M-gene binding primer and probe pair highly suitable for the quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA for diagnostic and research purposes.
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.
Background: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, interventions in the upper airways are considered high-risk procedures for otolaryngologists and their colleagues. The purpose of this study was to evaluate limitations in hearing and communication when using a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) system to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and to assess the benefit of a headset. Methods: Acoustic properties of the PAPR system were measured using a head and torso simulator. Audiological tests (tone audiometry, Freiburg speech test, Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA)) were performed in normal-hearing subjects (n = 10) to assess hearing with PAPR. The audiological test setup also included simulation of conditions in which the target speaker used either a PAPR, a filtering face piece (FFP) 3 respirator, or a surgical face mask. Results: Audiological measurements revealed that sound insulation by the PAPR headtop and noise, generated by the blower-assisted respiratory protection system, resulted in significantly deteriorated hearing thresholds (4.0 ± 7.2 dB hearing level (HL) vs. 49.2 ± 11.0
Evaluation of stability and inactivation methods of SARS-CoV-2 in context of laboratory settings
(2021)
The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of the acute respiratory disease COVID-19, which has become a global concern due to its rapid spread. Laboratory work with SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting was rated to biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) biocontainment level. However, certain research applications in particular in molecular biology require incomplete denaturation of the proteins, which might cause safety issues handling contaminated samples. In this study, we evaluated lysis buffers that are commonly used in molecular biological laboratories for their ability to inactivate SARS-CoV-2. In addition, viral stability in cell culture media at 4 °C and on display glass and plastic surfaces used in laboratory environment was analyzed. Furthermore, we evaluated chemical and non-chemical inactivation methods including heat inactivation, UV-C light, addition of ethanol, acetone-methanol, and PFA, which might be used as a subsequent inactivation step in the case of insufficient inactivation. We infected susceptible Caco-2 and Vero cells with pre-treated SARS-CoV-2 and determined the tissue culture infection dose 50 (TCID50) using crystal violet staining and microscopy. In addition, lysates of infected cells and virus containing supernatant were subjected to RT-qPCR analysis. We have found that guanidine thiocyanate and most of the tested detergent containing lysis buffers were effective in inactivation of SARS-CoV-2, however, the M-PER lysis buffer containing a proprietary detergent failed to inactivate the virus. In conclusion, careful evaluation of the used inactivation methods is required especially for non-denaturing buffers. Additional inactivation steps might be necessary before removal of lysed viral samples from BSL-3.