Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Transpl Int ; 36: 11153, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20231146

ABSTRACT

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyze the early humoral and cellular response in 64 adolescents KTx recipients, after two or three doses of mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 against different variants of COVID-19. After 2 doses, 77.8% % of children with no history of infection had a positive humoral response with a median anti-S IgG level of 1107 (IQR, 593-2,658) BAU/mL. All the patients with a history of infection responded with a higher median IgG level (3,265 (IQR, 1,492-8,178) BAU/mL). In non-responders after 2 doses, 75% responded after a third dose with a median Ab titer at 355 (IQR, 140-3,865 BAU/mL). Neutralizing activity was significantly lower against the delta and the omicron variants compared to the wild-type strain and did not improve after a 3rd dose, while infection did provide higher levels of neutralizations against the variants. T cell specific response correlated with humoral response and no patient displayed a cellular response without a humoral response. Adolescent KTx recipients exhibit a high seroconversion rate after only two doses. A third injection, induces a response in the majority of the non-responders patients but did not counterbalance the strong decrease in neutralizing antibody activities against variants highlighting the need for boosters with specific vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Kidney Transplantation , Adolescent , Humans , Child , COVID-19 Vaccines , BNT162 Vaccine , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , RNA, Messenger , Immunoglobulin G , Antibodies, Viral , Transplant Recipients
2.
Vaccine ; 40(33): 4682-4685, 2022 08 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1926969

ABSTRACT

Previous studies reporting the response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in alloHSCT recipients used serological and/or cellular assays, but no study has evaluated vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies. We prospectively studied 28 alloHSCT recipients who received two BNT162b2 doses. Two patients groups were defined according to time from alloHSCT and immunosuppressive treatment, and had different baseline immunologic status. Study end-point was the evaluation of humoral and cellular responses one month after the second vaccine. All patients seroconverted. Anti-S IgG levels and neutralizing antibodies percentages were not significantly different between both groups. Using IFNγ ELISpot assay, five patients showed a strong increase, without correlation with the humoral response. Using flow cytometry lymphocyte proliferation assay, 14 patients exhibited responding T cells, without difference between both groups or correlation with anti-S IgG levels. A few low serological responders had a detectable CD4 + T cell proliferative response. This finding should be confirmed in a larger cohort.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Immunity, Humoral , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
3.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(7): ofac188, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1922308

ABSTRACT

The potential preventive efficacy of tenofovir/emtricitabine on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was assessed in human immunodeficiency virus preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G between May and October 2020 was similar in PrEP users and in a matched population-based cohort, suggesting that tenofovir/emtricitabine has no role in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition.

4.
PLoS One ; 17(6): e0268382, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1875091

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, testing individuals remains a key action. One approach to rapid testing is to consider the olfactory capacities of trained detection dogs. METHODS: Prospective cohort study in two community COVID-19 screening centers. Two nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), one saliva and one sweat samples were simultaneously collected. The dog handlers (and the dogs…) were blinded with regards to the Covid status. The diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by canine olfaction was assessed as compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR as the reference standard, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing. RESULTS: 335 ambulatory adults (143 symptomatic and 192 asymptomatic) were included. Overall, 109/335 participants tested positive on nasopharyngeal RT-PCR either in symptomatic (78/143) or in asymptomatic participants (31/192). The overall sensitivity of canine detection was 97% (95% CI, 92 to 99) and even reached 100% (95% CI, 89 to 100) in asymptomatic individuals compared to NPS RT-PCR. The specificity was 91% (95% CI, 72 to 91), reaching 94% (95% CI, 90 to 97) for asymptomatic individuals. The sensitivity of canine detection was higher than that of nasopharyngeal antigen testing (97% CI: 91 to 99 versus 84% CI: 74 to 90, p = 0.006), but the specificity was lower (90% CI: 84 to 95 versus 97% CI: 93 to 99, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by canine olfaction could be one alternative to NPS RT-PCR when it is necessary to obtain a result very quickly according to the same indications as antigenic tests in the context of mass screening.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Animals , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/veterinary , Dogs , Humans , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Smell
5.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1823878

ABSTRACT

The potential preventive efficacy of tenofovir/emtricitabine on SARS-CoV-2 infection was assessed in HIV pre-exposition prophylaxis (PrEP) users. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG between May and October 2020 was similar in PrEP users and in a matched population-based cohort suggesting that tenofovir/emtricitabine has no role in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition.

6.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(3): 341-348, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537188

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mass indoor gatherings were banned in early 2020 to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to assess, under controlled conditions, whether infection rates among attendees at a large, indoor gathering event would be similar to those in non-attendees, given implementation of a comprehensive prevention strategy including antigen-screening within 3 days, medical mask wearing, and optimised ventilation. METHODS: The non-inferiority, prospective, open-label, randomised, controlled SPRING trial was done on attendees at a live indoor concert held in the Accor Arena on May 29, 2021 in Paris, France. Participants, aged 18-45 years, recruited via a dedicated website, had no comorbidities, COVID-19 symptoms, or recent case contact, and had had a negative rapid antigen diagnostic test within 3 days before the concert. Participants were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to the experimental group (attendees) or to the control group (non-attendees). The allocation sequence was computer-generated by means of permuted blocks of sizes three, six, or nine, with no stratification. The primary outcome measure was the number of patients who were SARS-CoV-2-positive by RT-PCR test on self-collected saliva 7 days post-gathering in the per-protocol population (non-inferiority margin <0·35%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04872075. FINDINGS: Between May 11 and 25, 2021, 18 845 individuals registered on the dedicated website, and 10 953 were randomly selected for a pre-enrolment on-site visit. Among 6968 who kept the appointment and were screened, 6678 participants were randomly assigned (4451 were assigned to be attendees and 2227 to be non-attendees; median age 28 years; 59% women); 88% (3917) of attendees and 87% (1947) of non-attendees complied with follow-up requirements. The day 7 RT-PCR was positive for eight of the 3917 attendees (observed incidence, 0·20%; 95% CI 0·09-0·40) and three of the 1947 non-attendees (0·15%; 0·03-0·45; absolute difference, 95% CI -0·26% to 0·28%), findings that met the non-inferiority criterion for the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: Participation in a large, indoor, live gathering without physical distancing was not associated with increased SARS-CoV-2-transmission risk, provided a comprehensive preventive intervention was implemented. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mass Gatherings , Mass Screening , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , Female , France , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Saliva/cytology
7.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 21126, 2021 10 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493210

ABSTRACT

Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is a cornerstone for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% and 97%, respectively. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p = 0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference tests, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in crude saliva samples with an RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.Registration number: NCT04578509.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/methods , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2 , Saliva/metabolism , Adult , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , False Negative Reactions , False Positive Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Molecular Medicine , Nasopharynx/virology , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques , Point-of-Care Systems , Point-of-Care Testing , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/genetics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity
8.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ; 40(11): 2379-2388, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1338227

ABSTRACT

Nasopharyngeal sampling for nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the standard diagnostic test of coronavirus disease 2019. Our objectives were to assess, in real-life conditions, the diagnostic accuracy of a nasopharyngeal point-of-care antigen (Ag) test and of saliva NAAT for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in ambulatory care. This was a prospective cohort study from 19 October through 18 December 2020 in two community COVID-19 screening centers in Paris, France. Two nasopharyngeal swabs and one saliva sample were simultaneously collected. Diagnostic accuracies of nasopharyngeal Ag testing and of three saliva NAAT methods were assessed as compared to nasopharyngeal NAAT. A total of 1452 ambulatory children and adults were included. Overall, 129/1443 (9%) participants tested positive on nasopharyngeal NAAT (102/564 [18%] in symptomatic and 27/879 [3%] in asymptomatic participants). Sensitivity was 94%, 23%, 96%, and 94% for the three different protocols of saliva NAAT and for the nasopharyngeal Ag test, respectively. Estimates of specificity were above 95% for all methods. Diagnostic accuracy was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Diagnostic accuracy of nasopharyngeal Ag testing and of saliva NAAT is similar to that of nasopharyngeal NAAT, subject to compliance with specific protocols for saliva. Registration number: NCT04578509.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Saliva/virology , Specimen Handling/methods , Adult , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Middle Aged , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/methods , Paris , Point-of-Care Testing , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity
9.
J Clin Virol Plus ; 1(1): 100021, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230600

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) recently emerged and is responsible for coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Diagnostic tests have been developed, mainly based on reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). Most RT-PCR assays target at least two SARS-CoV-2 genes. In some cases, only one target gene is detected; the interpretation of such cases remains unclear. Objectives: Our objective was to analyse one target positive (OPT) RT-PCR results, using two RT-PCR assays: the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid diagnosis, "Cepheid") and the Cobas® 6800 SARS-CoV-2 Test (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, "Roche"). Methods: All SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results performed on respiratory samples with the Roche or the Cepheid tests, from 23rd March to 6th August 2020 were collected. A patient with an OPT result was classified as "probable COVID-19" if they met at least one of the three following criteria: (i) history of a two gene-positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result, (ii) anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody (IgG) detection or (iii) compatible chest computed tomography scan (CT-scan). Results: A total of 18,630 and 1189 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were performed with the Roche and Cepheid tests, respectively. Among the positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, 293 samples - corresponding to 264 patients - were OPT (11% of the positive samples). Of these patients, 180 (68%) had at least one of the three criteria listed above and were classified as probable COVID-19. Conclusions: Sixty-eight percent of the patients with an OPT result were classified as probable COVID-19 and are probably at a late stage of infection. Serology and imaging can be helpful to confirm diagnosis.

10.
J Clin Microbiol ; 58(8)2020 07 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-591726

ABSTRACT

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has peaked in many countries already, the current challenge is to assess population immunity on a large scale. Many serological tests are available and require urgent independent validation. Here, we report performance characteristics of Orient Gene Biotech COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (OG) and compare it to Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassay (ASIA). Patients (n = 102) with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) were tested. The patients were asymptomatic (n = 2) or had mild (n = 37) or severe symptoms requiring hospitalization in a medical unit (n = 35) or intensive care unit (n = 28). Specificity was evaluated for 42 patients with previous viral and parasitic diseases as well as a high level of rheumatic factor. The sensitivity of OG was 95.8% (95% confidence interval [CI95%], 89.6 to 98.8) for samples collected ≥10 days after the onset of symptoms, which was equivalent to the sensitivity of ASIA of 90.5% (CI95%, 82.8 to 95.6). OG uncovered six false-negative results of ASIA, of which two had only IgM with OG. Specificity was 100% (CI95%, 93.4 to 100) with both tests on samples, including patients infected with endemic coronavirus. Overall, OG performance characteristics indicate that the test is suitable for routine use in clinical laboratories, and its performance is equivalent to that of immunoassay. Testing OG on a larger asymptomatic population may be needed to confirm these results.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Point-of-Care Testing , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL