ABSTRACT
The rapid rise of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria has once again caused bacterial infections to become a global health concern. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), also known as host defense peptides (HDPs), offer a viable solution to these pathogens due to their diverse mechanisms of actions, which include direct killing as well as immunomodulatory properties (e.g., anti-inflammatory activity). HDPs may hence provide a more robust treatment of bacterial infections. In this review, the advent of and the mechanisms that lead to antibiotic resistance will be described. HDP mechanisms of antibacterial and immunomodulatory action will be presented, with specific examples of how the HDP aurein 2.2 and a few of its derivatives, namely peptide 73 and cG4L73, function. Finally, resistance that may arise from a broader use of HDPs in a clinical setting and methods to improve biocompatibility will be briefly discussed.
Subject(s)
Antimicrobial Cationic Peptides/immunology , Antimicrobial Cationic Peptides/pharmacology , Bacteria/drug effects , Bacteria/immunology , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Bacterial Infections/immunology , Immunomodulation , Anti-Infective Agents/pharmacology , Antimicrobial Cationic Peptides/chemistry , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Host Microbial Interactions , Humans , Immunomodulating Agents/pharmacologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to suffer from delays and shortages. Antigen tests have recently emerged as a viable alternative to detect patients with high viral loads, associated with elevated risk of transmission. While rapid lateral flow tests greatly improved accessibility of SARS-CoV-2 detection in critical areas, their manual nature limits scalability and suitability for large-scale testing schemes. The Elecsys® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay allows antigen immunoassays to be carried out on fully automated high-throughput serology platforms. METHODS: A total of 3139 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected at 3 different testing sites in Germany. Swab samples were pre-characterized by reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and consecutively subjected to the antigen immunoassay on either the cobas e 411 or cobas e 801 analyzer. RESULTS: Of the tested respiratory samples, 392 were PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Median concentration was 2.95 × 104 (interquartile range [IQR] 5.1 × 102-3.5 × 106) copies/ml. Overall sensitivity and specificity of the antigen immunoassay were 60.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.2-65.1) and 99.9% (95% CI 99.6-100.0), respectively. A 93.7% (95% CI 89.7-96.5) sensitivity was achieved at a viral RNA concentration ≥ 104 copies/ml (~ cycle threshold [Ct] value < 29.9). CONCLUSION: The Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay reliably detected patient samples with viral loads ≥ 10,000 copies/ml. It thus represents a viable high-throughput alternative for screening of patients or in situations where PCR testing is not readily available.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Due to the number of asymptomatic infections and limited access to high-performance antibody tests, the true prevalence and seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unknown. To fill this gap, the clinical performance of a point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Assay, a chromatographic immunoassay for detecting IgM/IgG antibodies, in near patient settings was assessed. METHODS: Forty-two anti-SARS-Cov-2 positive (CoV+) and 92 anti-SARS-Cov-2 negative (CoV-) leftover samples from before December 2019 were assessed; the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 was used as the reference assay. Analytical specificity was tested using leftover samples collected before December 2019 from patients with common cold symptoms. RESULTS: The SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test was 100.0% (95% CI 91.59-100.0) sensitive and 96.74% (95% CI 90.77-99.32) specific, with 0.00% assay failure rate. No cross-reactivity was observed against the common cold panel. Method comparison was additionally conducted by two external laboratories, using 100 CoV+ and 275 CoV- samples, also comparing whole blood versus plasma matrix. The comparison demonstrated 96.00% positive and 96.36% negative percent agreement for plasma with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and 99.20% percent overall agreement between whole blood and EDTA plasma. CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test demonstrated similar performance to the manufacturer's data and a centralised automated immunoassay, with no cross-reactivity with common cold panels.