Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Viruses ; 15(2)2023 02 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2238514

ABSTRACT

People living with HIV (PLWH) may be at risk for poor immunogenicity to certain vaccines, including the ability to develop immunological memory. Here, we assessed T-cell immunogenicity following three SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses in PLWH versus uninfected controls. Blood was collected from 38 PLWH on antiretroviral therapy and 24 age-matched HIV-negative controls, pre-vaccination and after 1st/2nd/3rd dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Flow cytometry was used to assess ex vivo T-cell immunophenotypes and intracellular Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α/interferon(IFN)-γ/interleukin(IL)-2 following SARS-CoV-2-Spike-peptide stimulation. Comparisons were made using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired variables and Mann-Whitney for unpaired. In PLWH, Spike-specific CD4 T-cell frequencies plateaued post-2nd dose, with no significant differences in polyfunctional SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell proportions between PLWH and uninfected controls post-3rd dose. PLWH had higher frequencies of TNFα+CD4 T-cells and lower frequencies of IFNγ+CD8 T-cells than seronegative participants post-3rd dose. Regardless of HIV status, an increase in naive, regulatory, and PD1+ T-cell frequencies was observed post-3rd dose. In summary, two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine induced a robust T-cell immune response in PLWH, which was maintained after the 3rd dose, with no significant differences in polyfunctional SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell proportions between PLWH and uninfected controls post-3rd dose.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , T-Lymphocytes , Humans , CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , HIV Infections/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha , T-Lymphocytes/immunology
2.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262258, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1841144

ABSTRACT

Although patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza A, influenza B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) show comparable or very similar manifestations, the therapeutic approaches of these respiratory viral infections are different, which requires an accurate diagnosis. Recently, the novel multiplex real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex (BioSynex SA, Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France) allows simultaneous detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV in respiratory tract samples. We herein evaluated the performance of the AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex for the detection of the four viruses in respiratory specimens, using Allplex™ Respiratory Panel 1 and 2019-nCoV assays (Seegene, Seoul, Korea) as reference comparator assays. A total of 359 archived predetermined respiratory samples, including 83, 145, 19 and 95 positive specimens for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and RSV respectively, were included. The AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex showed high concordance with the reference assays, with an overall agreement for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV at 97.6%, 98.8%, 98.3% and 100.0%, respectively, and high κ values ranging from 0.93 to 1.00, indicating an almost perfect agreement between assays. Furthermore, high correlations of cycle threshold (Ct) values were observed for positive samples of the four viruses between the AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex and comparator assays, with an overall high agreement between Ct values assessed by Bland-Altman analyses. In conclusion, these observations demonstrate that the multiplex AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex is a reliable assay for the qualitative detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV in respiratory specimens, which may prove useful for streamlining diagnostics during the winter influenza-seasons.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Influenza, Human/virology , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Nasopharynx/virology , Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections/virology , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity
4.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 100(4): 115381, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1269260

ABSTRACT

To compare the practicability (usability and satisfaction) and analytical performances of VitaPCR™ Flu A&B Assay (Credo Diagnostics Biomedical Pte. Ltd., Singapore, Republic of Singapore) and Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV kit (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, USA), two rapid point-of-care (POC) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) by reference to multiplex RT-PCR for respiratory viruses. Nasopharyngeal swabs (n=117) were collected from patients with influenza-like illness in Paris, France. Thawed specimens were further analyzed with both NAATs. The usability was comparable for both NAATs. Satisfaction questionnaire was better for the VitaPCR™ platform for the short time of test result in 20 minutes. Both NAATs showed comparable sensitivities (VitaPCRTM: 95.0%; Xpert® Xpress: 97.5%) and specificities (100%) for influenza A/B RNA detection, with excellent reliability and accuracy between both NAATs. Both VitaPCR™ and Xpert® Xpress NAATs can be implemented in hospital setting as POC NAATs to rapidly detect influenza A/B RNA in symptomatic patients.


Subject(s)
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/instrumentation , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic/standards , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/instrumentation , Viruses/genetics , Humans , Influenza A virus/genetics , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/virology , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Nasopharynx/virology , Point-of-Care Testing/standards , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/standards , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viruses/classification , Viruses/isolation & purification
5.
J Med Virol ; 93(4): 2196-2203, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217373

ABSTRACT

We aimed to evaluate the rates of false-positive test results of three rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM detection. Two serum panels from patients hospitalized in Paris, France, and from patients living in Bangui, Central African Republic, acquired before the 2019 COVID-19 outbreak, were tested by 3 CE IVD-labeled RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 serology (BIOSYNEX® COVID-19 BSS [IgG/IgM]; SIENNA™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette; NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19). Detectable IgG or IgM reactivities could be observed in 31 (3.43%) of the 902 IgG and IgM bands of the 3 RDTs used with all pre-epidemic sera. The frequencies of IgG/IgM reactivities were similar for European (3.20%) and African (3.55%) sera. IgM reactivities were observed in 9 European and 14 African sera, while IgG reactivity was observed in only 1 African serum (15.1% vs. 0.66%). The test NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19 showed the highest rates of IgG or IgM reactivities (6.12% [18/294]), while the test BIOSYNEX® COVID-19 BSS (IgG/IgM) showed the lowest rate (1.36% [4/294]). Some combinations of 2 RDTs in series allowed decreasing significantly the risk of false-positive test results. Our observations point to the risk of false-positive reactivities when using currently available RDT for SARS-CoV-2 serological screening, especially for the IgM band, even if the test is CE IVD-labeled and approved by national health authorities, and provide the rational basis for confirmatory testing by another RDT in case of positive initial screening.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Africa , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Central African Republic , Europe , False Positive Reactions , Female , France , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Serologic Tests/methods
6.
Int J Infect Dis ; 106: 8-12, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1144722

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We herein assessed the analytical performances of the antigen-rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) SIENNA™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Cassette (Nasopharyngeal Swab) (Salofa Oy, Salo, Finland), targeting the SARS-CoV-2 N nucleocapsid protein, for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, by reference to real-time RT-PCR (rRT-PCR). METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from patients with COVID-19-like illness during the second epidemic wave in Paris, France, among which 100 and 50 were positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, the Ag-RDT showed high sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 90.0%, 100.0%, 100.0% and 98.1%, respectively, as well as high or almost perfect agreement (93.3%), reliability assessed by Cohen's κ coefficient (0.86), and accuracy assessed by Youden's J index (90%) to detect SARS-CoV-2. The analytical performances of the Ag-RDT remained high in the event of significant viral excretion (i.e., N gene Ct values ≤33 by reference rtRT-PCR), while the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT dropped to 69.6% with low or very low viral shedding (Ct > 33). CONCLUSIONS: The SIENNA™ Ag-RDT presents excellent analytical performances for viral loads ≤33 Ct, classically corresponding to situations of symptomatic COVID-19 and/or proven contagiousness.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Nasopharynx/virology , Nucleocapsid Proteins/analysis , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , France/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Predictive Value of Tests , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load
7.
J Virol Methods ; 290: 114067, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1032847

ABSTRACT

Facing the ongoing pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, there is an urgent need for serological assays identifying individuals previously infected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). We herein compared five new CE-IVD-labeled commercially available SARS-CoV-2 whole-blood finger-stick IgG/IgM combined RDTs, in parallel according to the manufacturers' instructions, with two serum panels obtained from 48 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (panel I) and from a group of 52 patients randomly selected, for whom serum samples collected before the COVID-19 epidemic (from October 1 to November 30, 2019) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 IgG (panel II). We found a sensitivity of 95.8 %, 91.6 %, 92.3 %, 97.9 % and 91.4 %, and a specificity of 98.1 %, 86.5 %, 100 %, 98.1 % and 84.6 %, for BIOSYNEX COVID-19 BSS (IgG/IgM) (Biosynex Swiss SA, Freiburg, Switzerland), Humasis COVID-19 IgG/IgM Test (Humasis Co., Ltd., Gyneonggi, Republic of Korea), LYHER COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test (Medakit Ltd, Hong Kong, China), SIENNA™ COVID-19 (IgG/IgM) Rapid Test Cassette (Salofa Oy, Salo, Finland) and NG-BIOTECH COVID-19 (IgG/IgM) (NG-Biotech, Guipry, France), respectively. Commercially available SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM combined RDTs have a sufficient sensitivity for identifying individuals with past SARS-CoV-2 infection, but some RDTs may lack of specificity, with risk of false positivity mainly for the IgM band.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Antibodies, Viral/blood , False Positive Reactions , Female , Humans , Immunoassay , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL