Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (6) (remove)
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Anti-CMV IgG (1)
- CMVepidemiology (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Congenital CMVinfection (1)
- Cytomegalovirus (CMV) (1)
- ELISA (1)
- Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (1)
- IFA (1)
- IgG (1)
- PCR (1)
Institute
- Medizin (6)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) serological assays are urgently needed for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing, and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how commercially available tests perform with real patient samples, and if positive tested samples show neutralizing abilities. Focusing on IgG antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of two enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assays (Euroimmun SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and Vircell COVID‐19 ELISA IgG) in comparison to one lateral flow assay (FaStep COVID‐19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device) and two in‐house developed assays (immunofluorescence assay [IFA] and plaque reduction neutralization test [PRNT]). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals polymerase chain reaction‐diagnosed with COVID‐19. Most of the SARS‐CoV‐2 samples were from individuals with moderate to the severe clinical course, who required an in‐patient hospital stay. For all examined assays, the sensitivity ranged from 58.8 to 76.5% for the early phase of infection (days 5‐9) and from 93.8% to 100% for the later period (days 10‐18).
As the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues, serological assays are urgently needed for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is little data on how commercially available tests perform with real patient samples and if detected IgG antibodies provide protective immunity. Focusing on IgG antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of two ELISA assays (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG & Vircell COVID-19 ELISA IgG) in comparison to one lateral flow assay ((LFA) FaStep COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device) and two in-house developed assays (immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT)). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. Most of the SARS-CoV-2 samples were from individuals with moderate to severe clinical course, who required an in-patient hospital stay.
For all examined assays, the sensitivity ranged from 58.8 to 76.5% for the early phase of infection (days 5-9) and from 93.8 to 100% for the later period (days 10-18) after PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. With exception of one sample, all positive tested samples in the analysed cohort, using the commercially available assays examined (including the in-house developed IFA), demonstrated neutralizing (protective) properties in the PRNT, indicating a potential protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Regarding specificity, there was evidence that samples of endemic coronavirus (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E) and Epstein Barr virus (EBV) infected individuals cross-reacted in the ELISA assays and IFA, in one case generating a false positive result (may giving a false sense of security). This need to be further investigated.
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.
Oral swabs, sputum and blood samples from 18 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were examined using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Whereas oral swabs or sputum from the lower respiratory tract were tested RT-PCR positive in all patients, RNAemia was neither detected in 3 patients without symptoms nor in 14 patients with flu-like symptoms, fever or pneumonia. The only patient with RNAemia suffered from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and was artificially ventilated in an intensive care unit. Risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission through blood components in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals therefore seems negligible but further studies are needed.
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.