Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (31)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Preprint (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (35) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (35)
Keywords
- SARS-CoV-2 (9)
- PCR (7)
- COVID-19 (6)
- HBV (2)
- HCV (2)
- Viruslast (2)
- cell culture (2)
- influenza (2)
- out-patient paediatrics (2)
- respiratory tract infection (2)
Institute
Die 1990 eingeführten ersten kommerziellen HCV-Antikörper-Screening Tests wurden im Laufe der Jahre bezüglich ihrer Sensitivität und Spezifität erheblich verbessert. Inzwischen sind auch standardisierte Verfahren zum qualitativen und quantitativen HCV-RNA-Nachweis verfügbar, die Dank der Einführung eines internationalen Standards miteinander vergleichbar sind. Aber auch mittels Antigen-ELISA ist es möglich, die im Patientenblut zirkulierende Virusmenge zu quantifizieren. Einer der Hauptübertragungswege – Bluttransfusion und Blutprodukte – der HCV-Infektion wurde durch die Verbesserung der virologischen Diagnostik nahezu eliminiert. Inzwischen sind i. v.-Drogenabhängige die Hauptrisikogruppe für eine HCV-Infektion. Bislang nur zu Forschungszwecken etablierte Methoden zur Messung der zellulären Immunität oder auch die Messung neutralisierender Antikörper könnten zum Beispiel im Rahmen einer Impfstoffentwicklung an Bedeutung gewinnen.
Der Nachweis von Chlamydia trachomatis Genomsequenzen ist seit einigen Jahren mit Hilfe kommerzieller Testkits, welche auf dem Prinzip der Polymerase-Ketten-Reaktion (PCR) oder Ligase-Kettenreaktion (LCR) beruhen, möglich. Vor kurzem wurde ein neues Verfahren, die Transcription Mediated Amplification (TMA), etabliert. In der vorliegenden Studie wurden drei Nukleinsäure Amplifikations-Techniken, die PCR, die LCR und die TMA für den Nachweis von Chlamydia trachomatis aus Urinproben miteinander bezüglich Sensitivität und Spezifität verglichen und einem Enzym-Immuno-Assay (EIA) zum C. trachomatis-Antigen-Nachweis aus endozervikalen Abstrichen gegenübergestellt. PCR, LCR und TMA zeigten eine vergleichbare Sensitivität und Spezifität. Diskrepante Ergebnisse ergaben sich im Vergleich mit dem C. trachomatis-Antigen-Nachweis. In 22 Abstrichen war Chlamydien-Antigen nachzuweisen. Nur bei 12 bzw. 11 der untersuchten Prostituierten konnten bei positivem zervikalen Abstrich Chlamydia trachomatis Genomsequenzen im Urin nachgewiesen werden. Bei 5 bzw. 4 Frauen wurde bei negativem Abstrichbefund C. trachomatis DNA bzw. RNA im Urin gefunden. Um bei Frauen eine hohe diagnostische Sensitivität zu erreichen, .sollten Urin und endozervikale Abstriche untersucht werden, da C. trachomatis nicht immer in beiden Probematerialien nachweisbar ist.
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.
Human cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patient groups at risk. We have previously shown that the anti-CMV IgG seroprevalence in an urban region of Germany has changed over the last decades. Overall, a decline from 63.7 to 57.25% had been observed between 1988–1997 and 1998–2008 (p < 0,001). Here, we continuously follow the trends to the most recent decade 2009 to 2018. In a retrospective analysis, we determined the seroprevalence of CMV IgG antibodies in our patient cohort, stratified by gender and selected groups at risk (e.g., patients with HIV infection; women of childbearing age). The overall prevalence of anti-CMV IgG non-significantly declined further from 57.25% in 1998–2008 to 56.48% in 2009–2018 (p = 0.881). Looking at gender differences, overall CMV seroprevalence in males declined to 52.82% (from 55.54% in 1998–2008; p = 0.0254), while it non-significantly increased in females to 59.80%. The high seroprevalence in patients with a known HIV infection further increased from 87.46% in 1998–2008 to 92.93% in the current period (p = 0.9999). In women of childbearing age, no significant changes over the last three decades could be observed. The CMV seroprevalence in oncological patients was determined to be 60.64%. Overall, the former significant decline of CMV seroprevalence between the decades 1988–1997 and 1998–2008 in this urban region of Germany slowed down to a non-significant decrease of 0.77% (1998–2008 vs. 2009–2018). This might be an indicator that CMV seroprevalence has reached a plateau.
Due to globally rising numbers of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, resources for real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR)-based testing have been exhausted. In order to meet the demands of testing and reduce transmission, SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are being considered. These tests are fast, inexpensive, and simple to use, but whether they detect potentially infectious cases has not been well studied. We evaluated three lateral flow assays (RIDA®QUICK SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (R-Biopharm), SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche)), and NADAL® COVID-19 Ag Test (Nal von Minden GmbH, Regensburg, Germany) and one microfluidic immunofluorescence assay (SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test (LumiraDx GmbH, Cologne, Germany)) using 100 clinical samples. Diagnostic rRT-PCR and cell culture testing as a marker for infectivity were performed in parallel. The overall Ag-RDT sensitivity for rRT-PCR-positive samples ranged from 24.3% to 50%. However, for samples with a viral load of more than 6 log10 RNA copies/mL (22/100), typically seen in infectious individuals, Ag-RDT positivity was between 81.8% and 100%. Only 51.6% (33/64) of the rRT-PCR-positive samples were infectious in cell culture. In contrast, three Ag-RDTs demonstrated a more significant correlation with cell culture infectivity (61.8–82.4%). Our findings suggest that large-scale SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT-based testing can be considered for detecting potentially infective individuals and reducing the virus spread.
Although a variety of genetic strategies have been developed to inhibit HIV replication, few direct comparisons of the efficacy of these inhibitors have been carried out. Moreover, most studies have not examined whether genetic inhibitors are able to induce a survival advantage that results in an expansion of genetically-modified cells following HIV infection. We evaluated the efficacy of three leading genetic strategies to inhibit HIV replication: 1) an HIV-1 tat/rev-specific small hairpin (sh) RNA; 2) an RNA antisense gene specific for the HIV-1 envelope; and 3) a viral entry inhibitor, maC46. In stably transduced cell lines selected such that >95% of cells expressed the genetic inhibitor, the RNA antisense envelope and viral entry inhibitor maC46 provided the strongest inhibition of HIV-1 replication. However, when mixed populations of transduced and untransduced cells were challenged with HIV-1, the maC46 fusion inhibitor resulted in highly efficient positive selection of transduced cells, an effect that was evident even in mixed populations containing as few as 1% maC46-expressing cells. The selective advantage of the maC46 fusion inhibitor was also observed in HIV-1-infected cultures of primary T lymphocytes as well as in HIV-1-infected humanized mice. These results demonstrate robust inhibition of HIV replication with the fusion inhibitor maC46 and the antisense Env inhibitor, and importantly, a survival advantage of cells expressing the maC46 fusion inhibitor both in vitro and in vivo. Evaluation of the ability of genetic inhibitors of HIV-1 replication to confer a survival advantage on genetically-modified cells provides unique information not provided by standard techniques that may be important in the in vivo efficacy of these genes.
Background: International travel is a major driver of the introduction and spread of SARS- CoV-2. Aim: To investigate SARS-CoV-2 genetic diversity in the region of a major transport hub in Germany, we characterized the viral sequence diversity of the SARS-CoV-2 variants circulating in Frankfurt am Main, the city with the largest airport in Germany, from the end of October to the end of December 2020. Methods: In total, we recovered 136 SARS-CoV-2 genomes from nasopharyngeal swab samples. We isolated 104 isolates that were grown in cell culture and RNA from the recovered viruses and subjected them to full-genome sequence analysis. In addition, 32 nasopharyngeal swab samples were directly sequenced. Results and conclusion: We found 28 different lineages of SARS- CoV-2 circulating during the study period, including the variant of concern B.1.1.7 (∆69/70, N501Y). Six of the lineages had not previously been observed in Germany. We detected the spike protein (S) deletion ∆69/∆70 in 15% of all sequences, a four base pair (bp) deletion (in 2.9% of sequences) and a single bp deletion (in 0.7% of sequences) in ORF3a, leading to ORF3a truncations. In four sequences (2.9%), an amino acid deletion at position 210 in S was identified. In a single sample (0.7%), both a 9 bp deletion in ORF1ab and a 7 bp deletion in ORF7a were identified. One sequence in lineage B.1.1.70 had an N501Y substitution while lacking the ∆69/70 in S. The high diversity of sequences observed over two months in Frankfurt am Main highlights the persisting need for continuous SARS-CoV-2 surveillance using full-genome sequencing, particularly in cities with international airport connections.
Background: To minimize the risk of disease transmission in cornea transplantation, donor screening for blood-derived viral infections is mandatory. Ideally, pre-mortem blood samples are used, but based on availability, cadaveric blood samples of cornea donors may also be used. However, serological and nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) need to be validated for the use of cadaveric specimens.
Methods: Hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV) 1/2, and Treponema pallidum (syphilis)-specific serological and/or NAT assays were validated on different platforms (Abbott Alinity i, Alinity m, Roche Cobas 6800, and Roche Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan (CAP/CTM)) using (un)spiked paired pre- and post-mortem cornea donor blood samples from the same individual (up to 23.83 h after death) of 28 individuals in accordance with the specifications of the German Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut [PEI]). In addition, routinely HBV-, HCV- and HIV-PCR-negative tested post-mortem blood samples of 24 individuals were used to assess NAT specificity.
Results: For the majority of serological parameters on the Abbott Alinity i (HBsAg, anti-HBc, anti-HBs, anti-HCV, anti-HIV, anti-HTLV 1/2, and anti-Treponema pallidum), ratios of generated test results of (un)spiked paired pre- and post-mortem blood samples differed ≤25%, with an agreement of qualitative pre- and post-mortem test results ranging from 91.2 to 100%. For NAT parameters (HBV, HCV, and HIV) on the Cobas 6800, Alinity m, and CAP/CTM, no significant deviation in virus concentrations (factor >5) of spiked pre- and post-mortem blood samples could be observed. Ct-values of corresponding internal controls did also not differ significantly (>1.5 Ct-values). In addition, no false-positive test results were generated when specificity was assessed.
Conclusion: Overall, fluctuations of test results for serological and NAT parameters in pre- and post-mortem blood samples examined in this study, were only limited and within the range of what is also observed when routinely testing fresh patient specimens. We conclude that all examined assays are eligible for the screening of blood samples taken up to about 24 h after the occurrence of death.
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 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.
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 & Aims: HBV genotype G (HBV/G) is mainly found in co-infections with other HBV genotypes and was identified as an independent risk factor for liver fibrosis. This study aimed to analyse the prevalence of HBV/G co-infections in healthy European HBV carriers and to characterize the crosstalk of HBV/G with other genotypes.
Methods: A total of 560 European HBV carriers were tested via HBV/G-specific PCR for HBV/G co-infections. Quasispecies distribution was analysed via deep sequencing, and the clinical phenotype was characterized regarding qHBsAg-/HBV-DNA levels and frequent mutations. Replicative capacity and expression of HBsAg/core was studied in hepatoma cells co-expressing HBV/G with either HBV/A, HBV/D or HBV/E using bicistronic vectors.
Results: Although no HBV/G co-infection was found by routine genotyping PCR, HBV/G was detected by specific PCR in 4%-8% of patients infected with either HBV/A or HBV/E but only infrequently in other genotypes. In contrast to HBV/E, HBV/G was found as the quasispecies major variant in co-infections with HBV/A. No differences in the clinical phenotype were observed for HBV/G co-infections. In vitro RNA and DNA levels were comparable among all genotypes, but expression and release of HBsAg was reduced in co-expression of HBV/G with HBV/E. In co-expression with HBV/A and HBV/E expression of HBV/G-specific core was enhanced while core expression from the corresponding genotype was markedly diminished.
Conclusions: HBV/G co-infections are common in European inactive carriers with HBV/A and HBV/E infection, but sufficient detection depends strongly on the assay. HBV/G regulated core expression might play a critical role for survival of HBV/G in co-infections.
An accurate quantification of low viremic HCV RNA plasma samples has gained importance since the approval of direct acting antivirals and since only one single measurement predicts the necessity of a prolonged or shortened therapy. As reported previously, HCV quantification assays such as Abbott RealTime HCV and Roche COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HCV version 2 (CTM v2) may vary in sensitivity and precision particularly in low-level viremia. Importantly, substantial variations were previously demonstrated between some of these assays compared to the Roche High Pure System/COBAS TaqMan assay (HPS) reference assay, which was used to establish the clinical decision points in clinical studies. In this study, the reproducibility of assay performances across several laboratories was assessed by analysing quantification results generated by six independent laboratories (3× RealTime, 3× CTM v2) in comparison with one HPS reference laboratory. The 4th WHO Standard was diluted to 100, 25 and 10 IU/ml, and aliquots were tested in triplicates in 5 independent runs by each assay in the different laboratories to assess assay precision and detection rates. In a second approach, 2 clinical samples (GT 1a & GT 1b) were diluted to 100 and 25 IU/ml and tested as described above. While the result range for WHO 100 IU/ml replicates across all laboratories was similar in this analysis, the CVs of each laboratory ranged from 19.3 to 25.6 % for RealTime laboratories and were lower than CVs of CTM v2 laboratories with a range of 26.1–47.3 %, respectively, and also in comparison with the CV of the HPS reference laboratory (34.9 %). At WHO standard dilution of 25 IU/ml, 24 replicates were quantified by RealTime compared to 8 replicates with CTM v2. Results of clinical samples again revealed a higher variation of CTM v2 results as compared to RealTime values. (CVs at 100 IU/ml: RealTime: 13.1–21.0 % and CTM v2: 15.0–32.3 %; CVs at 25 IU/ml: RealTime 17.6–34.9 % and CTM v2 28.2–54.9 %). These findings confirm the superior precision of RealTime versus CTM v2 at low-level viremia even across different laboratories including the new clinical decision point at 25 IU/ml. A highly precise monitoring of HCV viral load during therapy will remain crucial for patient management with regard to futility rules, therapy efficacy and SVR.
Multicentre comparison of quantitative PCR-based assays to detect SARS-CoV-2, Germany, March 2020
(2020)
Containment strategies and clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients during the current pandemic depend on reliable diagnostic PCR assays for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Here, we compare 11 different RT-PCR test systems used in seven diagnostic laboratories in Germany in March 2020. While most assays performed well, we identified detection problems in a commonly used assay that may have resulted in false-negative test results during the first weeks of the pandemic.
Highly sensitive qualitative and quantitative automatednucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) that are commercially available for the detection of hepatitis B virus (HBV)infection have been developed only in the last few years.The potential indications for HBV NATs are: follow-up ofchronic hepatitis B, therapy and antiviral resistance monitoring, determination of infectivity and transmission risk,detection of occult (HBsAg-negative and HBV DNA-positive) infection and mutant virus which may escape serologic diagnosis, blood donor screening, and resolution ofunusual or discordant serologic constellations. Although NATs are now widely implemented in the routine diagnosis of clinical laboratories, there are several importantissues which need to be further investigated. Standardisation of NATs used for the monitoring of antiviral therapyand follow-up of chronic infection is still lacking, and theclinical significance of HBV DNA levels needs to be clarified. The influence of genetic variability in terms of genotype variation has been poorly investigated so far.Although there are highly sensitive automated NATs forblood donor screening available, their implementation is still subject to discussion and certain countries rejectedHBV DNA testing for blood donation for reasons of poor cost-effectiveness.
Die HIV-1-Resistenztestung wird ein immer bedeutenderer Bestandteil des Monitorings der antiretroviralen Therapie und erfolgt in der Regel mittels Genotypisierung. Zur Zeit sind zwei Systeme kommerziell erhältlich und obwohl diese technisch nicht zu den einfach durchführbaren Methoden gehören, haben sie doch einen hohen Grad an Qualität erreicht. Modifikationen der Standardprotokolle sind für bestimmte Fragestellungen durchaus von Vorteil. Obwohl beide Systeme auf Entscheidungsregeln basierende Resistenz-Reports beinhalten, braucht es das zusätzliche Wissen und die Erfahrung des Anwenders, um die detektierten Mutationsmuster in klinisch brauchbare Resultate überführen zu können. Beide der hier detailliert beschriebenen Systeme haben ihre Vor- und Nachteile. Die Entscheidung für das eine oder andere System muss aufgrund der individuellen Bedürfnisse getroffen werden. Microarray-Systemen könnte der Markt der Zukunft gehören.
The duration of infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) in living patients has been demarcated. In contrast, a possible SARS-CoV-2 infectivity of corpses and subsequently its duration under post mortem circumstances remain to be elucidated. The aim of this study was to investigate the infectivity and its duration of deceased COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) patients. Four SARS-CoV-2 infected deceased patients were subjected to medicolegal autopsy. Post mortem intervals (PMI) of 1, 4, 9 and 17 days, respectively, were documented. During autopsy, swabs and organ samples were taken and examined by RT-qPCR (real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA). Determination of infectivity was performed by means of virus isolation in cell culture. In two cases, virus isolation was successful for swabs and tissue samples of the respiratory tract (PMI 4 and 17 days). The two infectious cases showed a shorter duration of COVID-19 until death than the two non-infectious cases (2 and 11 days, respectively, compared to > 19 days), which correlates with studies of living patients, in which infectivity could be narrowed to about 6 days before to 12 days after symptom onset. Most notably, infectivity was still present in one of the COVID-19 corpses after a post-mortem interval of 17 days and despite already visible signs of decomposition. To prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections in all professional groups involved in the handling and examination of COVID-19 corpses, adequate personal safety standards (reducing or avoiding aerosol formation and wearing FFP3 [filtering face piece class 3] masks) have to be enforced for routine procedures.
Background and Aims: The prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies in Germany has been estimated to be in the range of 0.4–0.63%. Screening for HCV is recommended in patients with elevated ALT levels or significant risk factors for HCV transmission only. However, 15–30% of patients report no risk factors and ALT levels can be normal in up to 20–30% of patients with chronic HCV infection. The aim of this study was to assess the HCV seroprevalence in patients visiting two tertiary care emergency departments in Berlin and Frankfurt, respectively.
Methods: Between May 2008 and March 2010, a total of 28,809 consecutive patients were screened for the presence of anti-HCV antibodies. Anti-HCV positive sera were subsequently tested for HCV-RNA.
Results: The overall HCV seroprevalence was 2.6% (95% CI: 2.4–2.8; 2.4% in Berlin and 3.5% in Frankfurt). HCV-RNA was detectable in 68% of anti-HCV positive cases. Thus, the prevalence of chronic HCV infection in the overall study population was 1.6% (95% CI 1.5–1.8). The most commonly reported risk factor was former/current injection drug use (IDU; 31.2%) and those with IDU as the main risk factor were significantly younger than patients without IDU (p<0.001) and the male-to-female ratio was 72% (121 vs. 46 patients; p<0.001). Finally, 18.8% of contacted HCV-RNA positive patients had not been diagnosed previously.
Conclusions: The HCV seroprevalence was more than four times higher compared to current estimates and almost one fifth of contacted HCV-RNA positive patients had not been diagnosed previously.
Im vorliegenden Fall wird von einer Fehldiagnose auf der Grundlage eines falsch-reaktiven Anti-HCV-Tests und eines falsch-reaktiven HCV-Nukleinsäureamplifikationstests (NAT) berichtet, die bei einem 58-jährigen chirurgischen Oberarzt im Rahmen einer arbeitsmedizinischen Vorsorgeuntersuchung im krankenhauseigenen Labor gestellt wurde und zu einem knapp zweimonatigen Berufsverbot führte. Basis dieser Fehldiagnose war ein wiederholt schwach reaktiver HCV-Antikörper-ELISA, der mit einem Nukleinsäureamplifikationstest, der ebenfalls schwach positiv ausfiel, überprüft wurde. Ein Antikörperbestätigungs- bzw. Ergänzungstest (Immunoblot) wurde nicht durchgeführt. Die Fehldiagnose ist jedoch nicht durch einen Testfehler, sondern durch ein Missverständnis entstanden, indem beim Kliniker zwei Laborindizien zu einem Beweis aufsummiert wurden.