Refine
Language
- English (23)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- SARS-CoV-2 (9)
- COVID-19 (6)
- PCR (5)
- influenza (2)
- out-patient paediatrics (2)
- respiratory tract infection (2)
- Acute HIV infection (1)
- Ag-RDT (1)
- Anti-CMV IgG (1)
- Assay variation (1)
Institute
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.
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.
Background In the pandemic, testing for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in 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.
Methods We tested an alternate approach (FACT) by simultaneously incubating multiple respiratory swabs in a single tube. This protocol was evaluated by serial incubation of a respiratory swab in up to 10 tubes. The analytics validity of this concept was demonstrated in a five-sample mini pool set-up. It was consequently applied in the testing of 50 symptomatic patients (five-sample pools) as well as 100 asymptomatic residents of a nursing home (ten-sample pools).
Results Serial incubation of a respiratory swab in up to 10 tubes did not lead to a significant decline in viral concentration. The novel FACT-protocol did not cause a false negative result in a five-sample mini-pool setup, with non-significantly differing Ct values between single sample and mini-pool NAT. In two routine applications, all mini pools containing positive patient samples were correctly identified.
Conclusions Our proposed FACT-protocol did not cause a significant loss in analytic or diagnostic sensitivity compared to single sample testing in multiple setups. It reduced the amount of reagents needed by up to 40%, and also reduced hands-on time. This method could enhance testing efficiency, especially in groups with a low pretest-probability, such as systemically relevant professional groups.
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.
Introduction: Reliable and cost-effective diagnostics for hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection are necessary. The aim of our study was to investigate which diagnostic test is most accurate to detect HEV infection in immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients in a real world setting. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 1165 patients tested for HEV antibodies and HEV PCR at the same time point. Clinical, laboratory and virological data were taken from patient charts. HEV IgA was measured in a subgroup of 185 patients. Results: HEV RNA was detectable in 61 patients (5.2%); most of them (n = 49, 80.3%/n = 43, 70.5%) were HEV IgM+ and IgG+; however, 12 patients (19.6%) were HEV RNA positive/HEV IgM negative and 17 patients (27.8%) were HEV RNA positive/HEV IgG negative. Ten HEV RNA positive patients (16.4%) had neither HEV IgG nor IgM antibodies. Importantly, all of them were immunosuppressed. HEV IgA testing was less sensitive than HEV IgM for HEV diagnosis. Conclusions: HEV infection can be overlooked in patients without HEV specific antibodies. Performing PCR is necessary to diagnose or exclude HEV infection in immunocompromised hosts. In immunocompetent patients, a screening based on HEV antibodies (IgG/IgM) is sufficient.
In resource-limited or point-of-care settings, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), that aim to simultaneously detect HIV antibodies and p24 capsid (p24CA) antigen with high sensitivity, can pose important alternatives to screen for early infections. We evaluated the performance of the antibody and antigen components of the old and novel version of the Determine™ HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo RDTs in parallel to quantifications in a fourth-generation antigen/antibody immunoassay (4G-EIA), p24CA antigen immunoassay (p24CA-EIA), immunoblots, and nucleic acid quantification. We included plasma samples of acute, treatment-naïve HIV-1 infections (Fiebig stages I–VI, subtypes A1, B, C, F, CRF02_AG, CRF02_AE, URF) or chronic HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections. The tests’ antigen component was evaluated also for a panel of subtype B HIV-1 transmitted/founder (T/F) viruses, HIV-2 strains and HIV-2 primary isolates. Furthermore, we assessed the analytical sensitivity of the RDTs to detect p24CA using a highly purified HIV-1NL4-3 p24CA standard. We found that 77% of plasma samples from acutely infected, immunoblot-negative HIV-1 patients in Fiebig stages II–III were identified by the new RDT, while only 25% scored positive in the old RDT. Both RDTs reacted to all samples from chronically HIV-1-infected and acutely HIV-1-infected patients with positive immunoblots. All specimens from chronically infected HIV-2 patients scored positive in the new RDT. Of note, the sensitivity of the RDTs to detect recombinant p24CA from a subtype B virus ranged between 50 and 200 pg/mL, mirrored also by the detection of HIV-1 T/F viruses only at antigen concentrations tenfold higher than suggested by the manufacturer. The RTD failed to recognize any of the HIV-2 viruses tested. Our results indicate that the new version of the Determine™ HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo displays an increased sensitivity to detect HIV-1 p24CA-positive, immunoblot-negative plasma samples compared to the precursor version. The sensitivity of 4G-EIA and p24CA-EIA to detect the major structural HIV antigen, and thus to diagnose acute infections prior to seroconversion, is still superior.
Background: Community acquired viruses (CRVs) may cause severe disease in cancer patients. Thus, efforts should be made to diagnose CRV rapidly and manage CRV infections accordingly.
Methods: A panel of 18 clinicians from the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology have convened to assess the available literature and provide recommendations on the management of CRV infections including influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza virus, human metapneumovirus and adenovirus.
Results: CRV infections in cancer patients may lead to pneumonia in approximately 30% of the cases, with an associated mortality of around 25%. For diagnosis of a CRV infection, combined nasal/throat swabs or washes/aspirates give the best results and nucleic acid amplification based-techniques (NAT) should be used to detect the pathogen. Hand hygiene, contact isolation and face masks have been shown to be of benefit as general infection management. Causal treatment can be given for influenza, using a neuraminidase inhibitor, and respiratory syncytial virus, using ribavirin in addition to intravenous immunoglobulins. Ribavirin has also been used to treat parainfluenza virus and human metapneumovirus, but data are inconclusive in this setting. Cidofovir is used to treat adenovirus pneumonitis.
Conclusions: CRV infections may pose a vital threat to patients with underlying malignancy. This guideline provides information on diagnosis and treatment to improve the outcome.