Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
Med Microbiol Immunol ; 212(5): 307-322, 2023 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37561226

RESUMEN

Diagnostic tests for direct pathogen detection have been instrumental to contain the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Automated, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid antigen (Ag) tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been launched alongside nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POC) lateral-flow Ag tests. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms for the detection of different sublineages of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VoC) (B.1.1.529) in comparison with "non-Omicron" VoCs. A total of 203 Omicron PCR-positive respiratory swabs (53 BA.1, 48 BA.2, 23 BQ.1, 39 XBB.1.5 and 40 other subvariants) from the period February to March 2022 and from March 2023 were examined. In addition, tissue culture-expanded clinical isolates of Delta (B.1.617.2), Omicron-BA.1, -BF.7, -BN.1 and -BQ.1 were studied. These results were compared to previously reported data from 107 clinical "non-Omicron" samples from the end of the second pandemic wave (February to March 2021) as well as cell culture-derived samples of wildtype (wt) EU-1 (B.1.177), Alpha VoC (B.1.1.7) and Beta VoC (B.1.351)). All four commercial Ag tests were able to detect at least 90.9% of Omicron-containing samples with high viral loads (Ct < 25). The rates of true-positive test results for BA.1/BA.2-positive samples with intermediate viral loads (Ct 25-30) ranged between 6.7% and 100.0%, while they dropped to 0 to 15.4% for samples with low Ct values (> 30). This heterogeneity was reflected also by the tests' 50%-limit of detection (LoD50) values ranging from 44,444 to 1,866,900 Geq/ml. Respiratory samples containing Omicron-BQ.1/XBB.1.5 or other Omicron subvariants that emerged in 2023 were detected with enormous heterogeneity (0 to 100%) for the intermediate and low viral load ranges with LoD50 values between 23,019 and 1,152,048 Geq/ml. In contrast, detection of "non-Omicron" samples was more sensitive, scoring positive in 35 to 100% for the intermediate and 1.3 to 32.9% of cases for the low viral loads, respectively, corresponding to LoD50 values ranging from 6181 to 749,792 Geq/ml. All four assays detected cell culture-expanded VoCs Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron subvariants carrying up to six amino acid mutations in the nucleocapsid protein with sensitivities comparable to the non-VoC EU-1. Overall, automated quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays are not more sensitive than standard rapid antigen tests used in POC settings and show a high heterogeneity in performance for VoC recognition. The best of these automated Ag tests may have the potential to complement nucleic acid-based assays for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in settings not primarily focused on the protection of vulnerable groups. In light of the constant emergence of new Omicron subvariants and recombinants, most recently the XBB lineage, these tests' performance must be regularly re-evaluated, especially when new VoCs carry mutations in the nucleocapsid protein or immunological and clinical parameters change.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Ácidos Nucleicos , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Proteínas de la Nucleocápside
2.
Med Microbiol Immunol ; 211(1): 71-77, 2022 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35061086

RESUMEN

On November 26, 2021, the World Health Organization classified B.1.1.529 as a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant of concern (VoC), named omicron. Spike-gene dropouts in conventional SARS-CoV-2 PCR systems have been reported over the last weeks as indirect diagnostic evidence for the identification of omicron. Here, we report the combination of PCRs specific for heavily mutated sites in the spike gene and nanopore-based full-length genome sequencing for the rapid and sensitive identification of the first four COVID-19 patients diagnosed in Germany to be infected with omicron on November 28, 2021. This study will assist the unambiguous laboratory-based diagnosis and global surveillance for this highly contagious VoC with an unprecedented degree of humoral immune escape. Moreover, we propose that specialized diagnostic laboratories should continuously update their assays for variant-specific PCRs in the spike gene of SARS-CoV-2 to readily detect and diagnose emerging variants of interest and VoCs. The combination with established nanopore sequencing procedures allows both the rapid confirmation by whole genome sequencing as well as the sensitive identification of newly emerging variants of this pandemic ß-coronavirus in years to come.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Secuenciación de Nanoporos , Humanos , Mutación , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Med Microbiol Immunol ; 210(5-6): 263-275, 2021 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34415422

RESUMEN

A versatile portfolio of diagnostic tests is essential for the containment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Besides nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POCT) antigen (Ag) tests, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid Ag tests for SARS-CoV-2 have recently been launched. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms and one POCT to detect SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated PCR-positive (n = 107) and PCR-negative (n = 303) respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the end of the second pandemic wave in Germany (February-March 2021) as well as clinical isolates EU1 (B.1.117), variant of concern (VOC) Alpha (B.1.1.7) or Beta (B.1.351), which had been expanded in a biosafety level 3 laboratory. The specificities of automated SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests ranged between 97.0 and 99.7% (Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Fujirebio): 97.03%, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Roche Diagnostics): 97.69%; LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Diasorin) and SARS-CoV-2 Ag ELISA (Euroimmun): 99.67%). In this study cohort of hospitalized patients, the clinical sensitivities of tests were low, ranging from 17.76 to 52.34%, and analytical sensitivities ranged from 420,000 to 25,000,000 Geq/ml. In comparison, the detection limit of the Roche Rapid Ag Test (RAT) was 9,300,000 Geq/ml, detecting 23.58% of respiratory samples. Receiver-operating-characteristics (ROCs) and Youden's index analyses were performed to further characterize the assays' overall performance and determine optimal assay cutoffs for sensitivity and specificity. VOCs carrying up to four amino acid mutations in nucleocapsid were detected by all five assays with characteristics comparable to non-VOCs. In summary, automated, quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests show variable performance and are not necessarily superior to a standard POCT. The efficacy of any alternative testing strategies to complement nucleic acid-based assays must be carefully evaluated by independent laboratories prior to widespread implementation.


Asunto(s)
Antígenos Virales/análisis , Prueba Serológica para COVID-19/métodos , COVID-19/virología , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Antígenos Virales/inmunología , Automatización/economía , Automatización/métodos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Prueba Serológica para COVID-19/economía , Estudios de Cohortes , Reacciones Falso Negativas , Alemania , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
4.
Med Microbiol Immunol ; 210(1): 65-72, 2021 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33452927

RESUMEN

Successful containment strategies for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will depend on reliable diagnostic assays. Point-of-care antigen tests (POCT) may provide an alternative to time-consuming PCR tests to rapidly screen for acute infections on site. Here, we evaluated two SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests: the STANDARD™ F COVID-19 Ag FIA (FIA) and the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (RAT). For diagnostic assessment, we used a large set of PCR-positive and PCR-negative respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients and health care workers in the setting of two University Hospitals in Munich, Germany, i.e. emergency rooms, patient care units or employee test centers. For FIA, overall clinical sensitivity and specificity were 45.4% (n = 381) and 97.8% (n = 360), respectively, and for RAT, 50.3% (n = 445) and 97.7% (n = 386), respectively. For primary diagnosis of asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals, diagnostic sensitivities were 60.9% (FIA) (n = 189) and 64.5% (RAT) (n = 256). This questions these tests' utility for the reliable detection of acute SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, in particular in high-risk settings. We support the proposal that convincing high-quality outcome data on the impact of false-negative and false-positive antigen test results need to be obtained in a POCT setting. Moreover, the efficacy of alternative testing strategies to complement PCR assays must be evaluated by independent laboratories, prior to widespread implementation in national and international test strategies.


Asunto(s)
Prueba Serológica para COVID-19/métodos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/inmunología , Adulto , Antígenos Virales/sangre , Niño , Preescolar , Reacciones Falso Negativas , Reacciones Falso Positivas , Alemania , Humanos , Sistemas de Atención de Punto , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
5.
Euro Surveill ; 25(24)2020 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32583765

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus/genética , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico/métodos , Infecciones por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Equipo para Diagnóstico , Neumonía Viral/diagnóstico , COVID-19 , Prueba de COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico/instrumentación , Heces/virología , Alemania , Humanos , Laboratorios , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa Multiplex/instrumentación , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa Multiplex/métodos , Pandemias , Reacción en Cadena en Tiempo Real de la Polimerasa/instrumentación , Reacción en Cadena en Tiempo Real de la Polimerasa/métodos , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa de Transcriptasa Inversa/instrumentación , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa de Transcriptasa Inversa/métodos , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA