Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Viruses ; 14(7)2022 07 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1939016

ABSTRACT

The SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, α, spread worldwide at the beginning of 2021. It was suggested that this variant was associated with a higher risk of mortality than other variants. We aimed to characterize the genetic diversity of SARS-CoV-2 variants isolated from patients with severe COVID-19 and unravel the relationships between specific viral mutations/mutational patterns and clinical outcomes. This is a prospective multicenter observational cohort study. Patients aged ≥18 years admitted to 11 intensive care units (ICUs) in hospitals in the Greater Paris area for SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory failure between 1 October 2020 and 30 May 2021 were included. The primary clinical endpoint was day-28 mortality. Full-length SARS-CoV-2 genomes were sequenced by means of next-generation sequencing (Illumina COVIDSeq). In total, 413 patients were included, 183 (44.3%) were infected with pre-existing variants, 197 (47.7%) were infected with variant α, and 33 (8.0%) were infected with other variants. The patients infected with pre-existing variants were significantly older (64.9 ± 11.9 vs. 60.5 ± 11.8 years; p = 0.0005) and had more frequent COPD (11.5% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.009) and higher SOFA scores (4 [3-8] vs. 3 [2-4]; 0.0002). The day-28 mortality was no different between the patients infected with pre-existing, α, or other variants (31.1% vs. 26.2% vs. 30.3%; p = 0.550). There was no association between day-28 mortality and specific variants or the presence of specific mutations. At ICU admission, the patients infected with pre-existing variants had a different clinical presentation from those infected with variant α, but mortality did not differ between these groups. There was no association between specific variants or SARS-CoV-2 genome mutational pattern and day-28 mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Critical Illness , Genomics , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
2.
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.

3.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ; 40(10): 2235-2241, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1156953

ABSTRACT

We report evaluation of 30 assays' (17 rapid tests (RDTs) and 13 automated/manual ELISA/CLIA assay (IAs)) clinical performances with 2594 sera collected from symptomatic patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR on a respiratory sample, and 1996 pre-epidemic serum samples expected to be negative. Only 4 RDT and 3 IAs fitted both specificity (> 98%) and sensitivity (> 90%) criteria according to French recommendations. Serology may offer valuable information during COVID-19 pandemic, but inconsistent performances observed among the 30 commercial assays evaluated, which underlines the importance of independent evaluation before clinical implementation.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/blood , Immunoassay/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Immunoassay/economics , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity
4.
J Clin Virol ; 132: 104618, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-741331

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to assess the analytical performances, sensitivity and specificity, of two rapid tests (Covid- Presto® test rapid Covid-19 IgG/IgM and NG-Test® IgM-IgG COVID-19) and one automated immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) for detecting anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. This study was performed with: (i) a positive panel constituted of 88 SARS-CoV-2 specimens collected from patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, and (ii) a negative panel of 120 serum samples, all collected before November 2019, including 64 samples with a cross-reactivity panel. Sensitivity of Covid-Presto® test for IgM and IgG was 78.4% and 92.0%, respectively. Sensitivity of NG-Test® for IgM and IgG was 96.6% and 94.9%, respectively. Sensitivity of Abbott IgG assay was 96.5% showing an excellent agreement with the two rapid tests (κ = 0.947 and κ = 0.936 for NGTest ® and Covid-Presto® test, respectively). An excellent agreement was also observed between the two rapid tests (κ = 0.937). Specificity for IgM was 100% and 86.5% for Covid-Presto® test and NG-Test®, respectively. Specificity for IgG was 92.0%, 94.9% and 96.5% for Covid-Presto®, NGTest ®, and Abbott, respectively. Most of the false positive results observed with NG-Test® resulted from samples containing malarial antibodies. In conclusion, performances of these 2 rapid tests are very good and comparable to those obtained with automated immunoassay, except for IgM specificity with the NG-Test®. Thus, isolated IgM should be cautiously interpreted due to the possible false-positive reactions with this test. Finally, before their large use, the rapid tests must be reliably evaluated with adequate and large panel including early seroconversion and possible cross-reactive samples.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoassay/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and Specificity
5.
J Clin Virol ; 130: 104573, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-701949

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: RT-PCR testing is crucial in the diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The use of reliable and comparable PCR assays is a cornerstone to allow use of different PCR assays depending on the local equipment. In this work, we provide a comparison of the Cobas® (Roche) and the RealStar® assay (Altona). METHODS: Assessment of the two assays was performed prospectively in three reference Parisians hospitals, using 170 clinical samples. They were tested with the Cobas® assay, selected to obtain a distribution of cycle threshold (Ct) as large as possible, and tested with the RealStar assay with three largely available extraction platforms: QIAsymphony (Qiagen), MagNAPure (Roche) and NucliSENS-easyMag (BioMérieux). RESULTS: Overall, the agreement (positive for at least one gene) was 76 %. This rate differed considerably depending on the Cobas Ct values for gene E: below 35 (n = 91), the concordance was 99 %. Regarding the positive Ct values, linear regression analysis showed a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.88 and the Deming regression line revealed a strong correlation with a slope of 1.023 and an intercept of -3.9. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the mean difference (Cobas® minus RealStar®) was + 3.3 Ct, with a SD of + 2.3 Ct. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison, both RealStar® and Cobas® assays provided comparable qualitative results and a high correlation when both tests were positive. Discrepancies exist after 35 Ct and varied depending on the extraction system used for the RealStar® assay, probably due to a low viral load close to the detection limit of both assays.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Limit of Detection , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load , Viral Proteins/genetics
6.
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