Refine
Document Type
- Article (46)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (48)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (48)
Keywords
- SARS-CoV-2 (48) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (48) (remove)
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 ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain that initiated the Covid-19 pandemic at the end of 2019 has rapidly mutated into multiple variants of concern with variable pathogenicity and increasing immune escape strategies. However, differences in host cellular antiviral responses upon infection with SARS-CoV-2 variants remain elusive. Leveraging whole-cell proteomics, we determined host signaling pathways that are differentially modulated upon infection with the clinical isolates of the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 B.1 and the variants of concern Delta and Omicron BA.1. Our findings illustrate alterations in the global host proteome landscape upon infection with SARS-CoV-2 variants and the resulting host immune responses. Additionally, viral proteome kinetics reveal declining levels of viral protein expression during Omicron BA.1 infection when compared to ancestral B.1 and Delta variants, consistent with its reduced replication rates. Moreover, molecular assays reveal deferral activation of specific host antiviral signaling upon Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 infections. Our study provides an overview of host proteome profile of multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants and brings forth a better understanding of the instigation of key immune signaling pathways causative for the differential pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Introduction: From the beginning of the corona pandemic until August 19, 2020, more than 21,989,366 cases have been reported worldwide – 228,495 in Germany alone, including 12,648 children aged 0–14. In many countries, the proportion of infected children in the total population is comparatively low; in addition, children often have no or milder symptoms and are less likely to transmit the pathogen to adults than the other way round. Based on the registration data in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, the symptoms of children in comparison with adults and the likely routes of transmission are presented below.
Materials and methods: The documentation of the mandatory reports includes personal data (name, date of birth, gender, place of residence), disease characteristics (date of report, date of onset of the disease, symptoms), possible contact persons (family, others) and i.a. possible activity or care in children’s community facilities. All reports were viewed, especially with regard to likely transmission routes.
Results: From March 1 to July 31, 2020, 1,977 infected people were reported, including 138 children between the ages of 0 and 14 years. Children had fewer and milder symptoms than adults. None of the children experienced severe respiratory symptoms or the need for ventilation. 62% of the children had no symptoms at all (19% adults), 5% of the children were hospitalized (24% adults), and none of the children died (3.8% adults).
After excluding a cluster of 34 children from refugee accommodations and 14 children from a parish, 78% of the remaining 90 children had been infected by an adult within the family, and only 4% were likely to have a reverse transmission route. In 5.5% of cases, transmission in a community facility was likely.
Discussion: The results of the registration data from Frankfurt am Main, Germany confirm the results published in other countries: Children are less likely to become infected, and if infected, their symptoms are less severe than in adults, and they are apparently not the main drivers of virus transmission. Therefore, scientific medical associations strongly recommend reopening schools.
Background: The factors driving the late phase of COVID-19 are still poorly understood. However, autoimmunity is an evolving theme in COVID-19’s pathogenesis. Additionally, deregulation of human retroelements (RE) is found in many viral infections, and has also been reported in COVID-19.
Results: Unexpectedly, coronaviruses (CoV) – including SARS-CoV-2 – harbour many RE-identical sequences (up to 35 base pairs), and some of these sequences are part of SARS-CoV-2 epitopes associated to COVID-19 severity. Furthermore, RE are expressed in healthy controls and human cells and become deregulated after SARS-CoV-2 infection, showing mainly changes in long interspersed nuclear element (LINE1) expression, but also in endogenous retroviruses.
Conclusion: CoV and human RE share coding sequences, which are targeted by antibodies in COVID-19 and thus could induce an autoimmune loop by molecular mimicry.
Aims: SARS-CoV-2 is a single-stranded RNA virus which is part of the ß-coronavirus family (like SARS 2002 and MERS 2012). The high prevalence of hospitalization and mortality, in addition to the lack of vaccines and therapeutics, forces scientists and clinicians around the world to evaluate new therapeutic options. One strategy is the repositioning of already known drugs, which were approved drugs for other indications.
Subject and method: SARS-CoV-2 entry inhibitors, RNA polymerase inhibitors, and protease inhibitors seem to be valuable targets of research. At the beginning of the pandemic, the ClinicalTrials.gov webpage listed n=479 clinical trials related to the antiviral treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (01.04.2020, “SARS-CoV-2,” “COVID-19,” “antivirals,” “therapy”), of which n=376 are still accessible online in January 2021 (10.01.2021). Taking into account further studies not listed in the CTG webpage, this narrative review appraises HIV protease inhibitors and nucleos(t)ide RNA polymerase inhibitors as promising candidates for the treatment of COVID-19.
Results: Lopinavir/ritonavir, darunavir/cobicistat, remdesivir, tenofovir-disoproxilfumarate, favipriravir, and sofosbuvir are evaluated in clinical studies worldwide. Study designs show a high variability and results often are contradictory. Remdesivir is the drug, which is deployed in nearly 70% of the reviewed clinical trials, followed by lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, ribavirine, and sofosbuvir.
Discussion: This review discusses the pharmacological/clinical background and questions the rationale and study design of clinical trials with already approved HIV protease inhibitors and nucleos(t)ide RNA polymerase inhibitors which are repositioned during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic worldwide. Proposals are made for future study design and drug repositioning of approved antiretroviral compounds.
Dental clinics were suspected to be a hotspot for nosocomial transmission of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), yet there has been no clear recommendation about emergency dental care and appropriate personal protective equipment during pandemics. In this paper, we aim to summarize recommendations for (i) patient risk assessment, (ii) patient triage, and (iii) measures to prevent infection of health professionals and nosocomial transmission in dental clinics. The available evidence was collected by performing searches on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. We reviewed papers on COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, and related respiratory viral diseases. Legal and ethical frameworks, as well as international (e.g., World Health Organization (WHO)) and national (e.g., public health institutes, dental associations) guidelines were screened to summarize recommendations related to dental emergency care. To assess the patient risk, a questionnaire was developed to classify patients at unknown, high, and very high risk. Patient triage recommendations were summarized in a flow chart that graded the emergency level of treatments (i.e., urgent, as soon as possible, and postpone). Measures to prevent disease transmission based on current evidence were grouped for dental health professionals, dental clinics, and patients. The present recommendations may support health professionals implement preventative measures during the pandemic.
Background: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, interventions in the upper airways are considered high-risk procedures for otolaryngologists and their colleagues. The purpose of this study was to evaluate limitations in hearing and communication when using a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) system to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and to assess the benefit of a headset. Methods: Acoustic properties of the PAPR system were measured using a head and torso simulator. Audiological tests (tone audiometry, Freiburg speech test, Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA)) were performed in normal-hearing subjects (n = 10) to assess hearing with PAPR. The audiological test setup also included simulation of conditions in which the target speaker used either a PAPR, a filtering face piece (FFP) 3 respirator, or a surgical face mask. Results: Audiological measurements revealed that sound insulation by the PAPR headtop and noise, generated by the blower-assisted respiratory protection system, resulted in significantly deteriorated hearing thresholds (4.0 ± 7.2 dB hearing level (HL) vs. 49.2 ± 11.0
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.
The new variant of concern (VOC) of SARS-CoV-2, Omicron (B.1.1.529), is genetically very different from other VOCs. We compared Omicron with the preceding VOC Delta (B.1.617.2) and the wildtype (wt) strain (B.1) with respect to their interactions with the antiviral interferon (IFN-alpha/beta) response in infected cells. Our data indicate that IFN induction by Omicron is low and comparable to the wt, whereas Delta showed an increased IFN induction. However, Omicron exceeded both the wt and the Delta strain with respect to the ability to withstand the antiviral state imposed by IFN-alpha.