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
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.