Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
1.
Commun Med (Lond) ; 2: 65, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1947557

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused millions of infections and fatalities globally since its emergence in late 2019. The virus was first detected in Finland in January 2020, after which it rapidly spread among the populace in spring. However, compared to other European nations, Finland has had a low incidence of SARS-CoV-2. To gain insight into the origins and turnover of SARS-CoV-2 lineages circulating in Finland in 2020, we investigated the phylogeographic and -dynamic history of the virus. Methods: The origins of SARS-CoV-2 introductions were inferred via Travel-aware Bayesian time-measured phylogeographic analyses. Sequences for the analyses included virus genomes belonging to the B.1 lineage and with the D614G mutation from countries of likely origin, which were determined utilizing Google mobility data. We collected all available sequences from spring and fall peaks to study lineage dynamics. Results: We observed rapid turnover among Finnish lineages during this period. Clade 20C became the most prevalent among sequenced cases and was replaced by other strains in fall 2020. Bayesian phylogeographic reconstructions suggested 42 independent introductions into Finland during spring 2020, mainly from Italy, Austria, and Spain. Conclusions: A single introduction from Spain might have seeded one-third of cases in Finland during spring in 2020. The investigations of the original introductions of SARS-CoV-2 to Finland during the early stages of the pandemic and of the subsequent lineage dynamics could be utilized to assess the role of transboundary movements and the effects of early intervention and public health measures.

3.
Research Square ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1786497

ABSTRACT

Multiple introductions of SARS-COV-2 Omicron variant BA.1. and BA.1.1. lineages to Finland were detected early December 2021, and comprised the majority over Delta variant in 3 weeks in the capital region. Our sequence analysis demonstrates emergence of a large cluster of BA.1.1 in community transmission.

4.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(6): 1229-1232, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775623

ABSTRACT

Multiple introductions of SARS-COV-2 Omicron variant BA.1 and BA.1.1. lineages to Finland were detected in early December 2021. Within 3 weeks, Omicron overtook Delta as the most common variant in the capital region. Sequence analysis demonstrated the emergence and spread through community transmission of a large cluster of BA.1.1 virus.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Finland/epidemiology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
5.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(12): 3137-3141, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496966

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Alpha and Beta variants became dominant in Finland in spring 2021 but had diminished by summer. We used phylogenetic clustering to identify sources of spreading. We found that outbreaks were mostly seeded by a few introductions, highlighting the importance of surveillance and prevention policies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Finland/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Phylogeny
6.
PLoS One ; 16(5): e0251661, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1238764

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Understanding the false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is pivotal for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic and it has implications for patient management. Our aim was to determine the real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. METHODS: This population-based retrospective study was conducted in March-April 2020 in the Helsinki Capital Region, Finland. Adults who were clinically suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection and underwent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, with sufficient data in their medical records for grading of clinical suspicion were eligible. In addition to examining the first RT-PCR test of repeat-tested individuals, we also used high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 as the reference standard for calculating the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. RESULTS: All 1,194 inpatients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [18.3] years; 45.2% women) admitted to COVID-19 cohort wards during the study period were included. The outpatient cohort of 1,814 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [17.2] years; 69.1% women) was sampled from epidemiological line lists by systematic quasi-random sampling. The sensitivity (95% CI) for laboratory confirmed cases (repeat-tested patients) was 85.7% (81.5-89.1%) inpatients; 95.5% (92.2-97.5%) outpatients, 89.9% (88.2-92.1%) all. When also patients that were graded as high suspicion but never tested positive were included in the denominator, the sensitivity (95% CI) was: 67.5% (62.9-71.9%) inpatients; 34.9% (31.4-38.5%) outpatients; 47.3% (44.4-50.3%) all. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing was only moderate at best. The relatively high false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing need to be accounted for in clinical decision making, epidemiological interpretations, and when using RT-PCR as a reference for other tests.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/standards , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , False Negative Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Random Allocation , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/standards
7.
mBio ; 12(3)2021 05 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1234283

ABSTRACT

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen an unprecedented increase in the demand for rapid and reliable diagnostic tools, leaving many laboratories scrambling for resources. We present a fast and simple assay principle for antigen detection and demonstrate its functionality by detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigens in nasopharyngeal swabs. The method is based on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (NP) and S protein (SP) via time-resolved Förster resonance energy transfer (TR-FRET) with donor- and acceptor-labeled polyclonal anti-NP and -SP antibodies. Using recombinant proteins and cell culture-grown SARS-CoV-2, the limits of detection were established as 25 pg of NP or 20 infectious units (IU) and 875 pg of SP or 625 IU. Testing reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR)-positive (n = 48, with cycle threshold [CT ] values from 11 to 30) or -negative (n = 96) nasopharyngeal swabs demonstrated that the assay yielded positive results for all samples with CT values of <25 and for a single RT-PCR-negative sample. Virus isolation from the RT-PCR-positive nasopharyngeal swabs showed a strong association between the presence of infectious virus and a positive antigen test result. The NP-based assay showed 97.4% (37/38) sensitivity and 100% (10/10) specificity in comparison with virus isolation and 77.1% (37/48) sensitivity and 99.0% (95/96) specificity in comparison with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. The assay is performed in a buffer that neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 infectivity, and the assay is relatively simple to set up as an "in-house" test. Here, SARS-CoV-2 served as the model pathogen, but the assay principle is applicable to other viral infections, and the test format could easily be adapted to high-throughput testing.IMPORTANCE PCR is currently the gold standard for the diagnosis of many acute infections. While PCR and its variants are highly sensitive and specific, the time from sampling to results is measured in hours at best. Antigen tests directly detect parts of the infectious agent, which may enable faster diagnosis but often at lower sensitivity and specificity. Here, we describe a technique for rapid antigen detection and demonstrate the test format's potential using SARS-CoV-2 as the model pathogen. The 10-min test, performed in a buffer that readily inactivates SARS-CoV-2, from nasopharyngeal samples identified 97.4% (37/38) of the samples from which we could isolate the virus. This suggests that the test performs well in identifying patients potentially shedding the virus. Although SARS-CoV-2 served as the model pathogen to demonstrate proof of concept, the test principle itself would be applicable to a wide variety of infectious and perhaps also noninfectious diseases.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/analysis , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Humans , Limit of Detection , Nasopharynx/virology , Phosphoproteins/analysis , Phosphoproteins/immunology , Proof of Concept Study , Recombinant Proteins/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/analysis , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Time Factors
8.
J Infect Dis ; 224(2): 218-228, 2021 07 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1203709

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Primary diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is based on detection of virus RNA in nasopharyngeal swab samples. In addition, analysis of humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 has an important role in viral diagnostics and seroprevalence estimates. METHODS: We developed and optimized an enzyme immunoassays (EIA) using SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (N), S1 and receptor binding domain (RBD) of the viral spike protein, and N proteins from SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and 4 low-pathogenic human CoVs. Neutralizing antibody activity was compared with SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM EIA results. RESULTS: The sensitivity of EIA for detecting immune response in COVID-19 patients (n = 101) was 77% in the acute phase and 100% in the convalescent phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection when N and RBD were used as antigens in IgG and IgA specific EIAs. SARS-CoV-2 infection significantly increased humoral immune responses against the 229E and NL63 N proteins. S1 and RBD-based EIA results had a strong correlation with microneutralization test results. CONCLUSIONS: The data indicate a combination of SARS-CoV-2 S1 or RBD and N proteins and analysis of IgG and IgA immunoglobulin classes in sera provide an excellent basis for specific and sensitive serological diagnostics of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Immunoglobulin A/blood , Immunoglobulin G/blood , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Humans , Immunoenzyme Techniques , Immunoglobulin A/immunology , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Immunoglobulin M/immunology , Neutralization Tests , Phosphoproteins/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity
9.
J Mol Diagn ; 23(4): 407-416, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1152514

ABSTRACT

Mitigation of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires reliable and accessible laboratory diagnostic services. In this study, the performance of one laboratory-developed test (LDT) and two commercial tests, cobas SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) and Amplidiag COVID-19 (Mobidiag), were evaluated for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in respiratory specimens. A total of 183 specimens collected from suspected COVID-19 patients were studied with all three methods to compare their performance. In relation to the reference standard, which was established as the result obtained by two of the three studied methods, the positive percent agreement was highest for the cobas test (100%), followed by the Amplidiag test and the LDT (98.9%). The negative percent agreement was lowest for the cobas test (89.4%), followed by the Amplidiag test (98.8%), and the highest value was obtained for the LDT (100%). The dilution series of positive specimens, however, suggests significantly higher sensitivity for the cobas assay in comparison with the other two assays, and the low negative percent agreement value may be due to the same reason. In general, all tested assays performed adequately. Clinical laboratories need to be prepared for uninterrupted high-throughput testing during the coming months to mitigate the pandemic. To ensure no interruption, it is critical that clinical laboratories maintain several simultaneous platforms in their SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods
10.
Infect Dis (Lond) ; 53(2): 111-121, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066203

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical characteristics, findings, and outcomes of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or influenza to detect relevant differences. METHODS: From December 2019 to April 2020, we recruited all eligible hospitalized adults with respiratory infection to a prospective observational study at a tertiary care hospital in Finland. Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by RT-PCR. Follow-up lasted for 3 months from admission. RESULTS: We included 61 patients, of whom 28 were COVID-19 and 33 influenza patients with median ages of 53 and 56 years. Majority of both COVID-19 and influenza patients were men (61% vs. 67%) and had at least one comorbidity (68% vs. 85%). Pulmonary diseases and current smoking were less common among COVID-19 than influenza patients (5 [18%] vs. 15 [45%], p=.03 and 1 [4%] vs. 10 [30%], p=.008). In chest X-ray at admission, ground-glass opacities (GGOs) and consolidations were more frequent among COVID-19 than influenza patients (19 [68%] and 7 [21%], p<.001). Severe disease and intensive care unit (ICU) admission occurred more often among COVID-19 than influenza patients (26 [93%] vs. 19 [58%], p=.003 and 8 [29%] vs. 2 [6%], p=.034). COVID-19 patients were hospitalized longer than influenza patients (six days [IQR 4-21] vs. 3 [2-4], p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral GGOs and consolidations in chest X-ray may help to differentiate COVID-19 from influenza. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients had more severe disease, required longer hospitalization and were admitted to ICU more often than influenza patients, which has important implications for public health policies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Orthomyxoviridae/pathogenicity , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Cardiovascular Diseases/virology , Comorbidity , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus/virology , Female , Finland/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Incidence , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/mortality , Influenza, Human/virology , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Severity of Illness Index , Survival Analysis , Tertiary Care Centers , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
11.
Travel Med Infect Dis ; 39: 101949, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-970990

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Exposure, risks and immunity of healthcare workers (HCWs), a vital resource during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, warrant special attention. METHODS: HCWs at Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, filled in questionnaires and provided serum samples for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody screening by Euroimmun IgG assay in March-April 2020. Positive/equivocal findings were confirmed by Abbott and microneutralization tests. Positivity by two of the three assays or RT-PCR indicated a Covid-19 case (CoV+). RESULTS: The rate of CoV(+) was 3.3% (36/1095) and seropositivity 3.0% (33/1095). CoV(+) was associated with contact with a known Covid-19 case, and working on a Covid-19-dedicated ward or one with cases among staff. The rate in the Covid-19-dedicated ICU was negligible. Smoking and age <55 years were associated with decreased risk. CoV(+) was strongly associated with ageusia, anosmia, myalgia, fatigue, fever, and chest pressure. Seropositivity was recorded for 89.3% of those with prior documented RT-PCR-positivity and 2.4% of those RT-PCR-negative. The rate of previously unidentified cases was 0.7% (8/1067) and asymptomatic ones 0% (0/36). CONCLUSION: Undiagnosed and asymptomatic cases among HCWs proved rare. An increased risk was associated with Covid-19-dedicated wards. Particularly high rates were seen for wards with liberal HCW-HCW contacts, highlighting the importance of social distancing also among HCWs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Finland/epidemiology , Hospitals, University , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Seroepidemiologic Studies
13.
J Clin Virol ; 131: 104614, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-731821

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rapid sample-to-answer tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 are emerging and data on their relative performance is urgently needed. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the analytical performance of two rapid nucleic acid tests, Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Mobidiag Novodiag® Covid-19, in comparison to a combination reference of three large-scale PCR tests. Moreover, utility of the Novodiag® test in tertiary care emergency departments was assessed. RESULTS: In the preliminary evaluation, analysis of 90 respiratory samples resulted in 100% specificity and sensitivity for Xpert®, whereas analysis of 107 samples resulted in 93.4% sensitivity and 100% specificity for Novodiag®. Rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing with Novodiag® was made available for four tertiary care emergency departments in Helsinki, Finland between 18 and 31 May, coinciding with a rapidly declining epidemic phase. Altogether 361 respiratory specimens, together with relevant clinical data, were analyzed with Novodiag® and reference tests: 355/361 of the specimens were negative with both methods, and 1/361 was positive in Novodiag® and negative by the reference method. Of the 5 remaining specimens, two were negative with Novodiag®, but positive with the reference method with late Ct values. On average, a test result using Novodiag® was available nearly 8 hours earlier than that obtained with the large-scale PCR tests. CONCLUSIONS: While the performance of novel sample-to-answer PCR tests need to be carefully evaluated, they may provide timely and reliable results in detection of SARS-CoV-2 and thus facilitate patient management including effective cohorting.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Child, Preschool , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Finland , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Tertiary Healthcare/statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
14.
Euro Surveill ; 25(18)2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-197012

ABSTRACT

Antibody-screening methods to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) need to be validated. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs in conjunction with the EUROLabworkstation (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). Overall specificities were 91.9% and 73.0% for IgG and IgA ELISAs, respectively. Of 39 coronavirus disease patients, 13 were IgG and IgA positive and 11 IgA alone at sampling. IgGs and IgAs were respectively detected at a median of 12 and 11 days after symptom onset.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Immunoglobulin A/blood , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Automation, Laboratory , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Child, Preschool , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Finland/epidemiology , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL