Refine
Language
- English (17)
Has Fulltext
- yes (17)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (17) (remove)
Keywords
- SARS-CoV-2 (5)
- COVID-19 (4)
- PCR (3)
- PRNT (2)
- Ag-RDT (1)
- Anti-CMV IgG (1)
- Autopsy (1)
- BNT162b2 (1)
- Bio safety (1)
- CMVepidemiology (1)
Institute
- Medizin (17)
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.
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.
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).
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.
Postmortem detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) after the exhumation of a corpse can become important, e.g. in the case of subsequent medical malpractice allegations. To date, data on possible detection periods [e.g. by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] or on the potential infectivity of the virus after an exhumation are rare. In the present study, these parameters were examined in two cases with a time span of approximately 4 months between day of death and exhumation. Using SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR on swabs of both lungs and the oropharynx detection was possible with cycle threshold (Ct) values of about 30 despite signs of beginning decay. RT-PCR testing of perioral and perinasal swabs and swabs collected from the inside of the body bag, taken to estimate the risk of infection of those involved in the exhumation, was negative. Cell culture-based infectivity testing was negative for both, lung and oropharyngeal swabs. In one case, RT-PCR testing at the day of death of an oropharyngeal swab showed almost identical Ct values as postmortem testing of an oropharyngeal swab, impressively demonstrating the stability of viral RNA in the intact corpse. However, favorable climatic conditions in the grave have to be taken into account, as it was wintertime with constant low temperatures. Nevertheless, it was possible to demonstrate successful postmortem detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection following exhumation even after months in an earth grave.
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.
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.