Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
J Infect Dis ; 2022 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1816119

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The possibility of repeat infections with SARS-CoV-2 raises questions regarding quality and longevity of the virus-induced immune response. METHODS: The antibody course and memory B-cell (MBC) response against SARS-CoV-2 proteins, influenza virus nucleoprotein (NP) and tetanus toxin (Ttx) were examined in adults with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first year after infection. RESULTS: The concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies was low compared with the concentration of influenza virus NP-specific antibodies. The SARS-CoV-2 RBD antibody half-life increased from 95 days in the first six months to 781 days after 9-12 months. The SARS-CoV-2 NP antibody half-life increased from 88 to 248 days. Two thirds of the subjects had SARS CoV-2-specific MBC responses 12 months after infection. SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels correlated with the MBC frequency at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The low concentration of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies indicates that re-exposure to the virus or vaccination are required to use the B-cell immunity to full capacity. The existence of a robust SARS CoV-2 MBC response at 12 months in most subjects and the substantially increasing antibody half-life provide evidence that the immune response is developing into long-term immunity. The early antibody reaction and the ensuing MBC response are interdependent.

2.
Dtsch Arztebl Int ; (Forthcoming)2022 Jun 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1809328

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It is predicted that approximately two billion tourist trips to foreign countries will be taken worldwide each year by 2030. Germany has long been among the most active countries in tourism. The frequency of illness among persons returning from developing and newly industrialized countries is 43-79%. The appropriate diagnosis of fever in returning travelers is a clinically important matter, as it can be a sign of a life-threatening illness. METHODS: This review is based on publications (2001-2022) retrieved by a selective search in PubMed for studies on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of febrile illnesses in returning travelers, or on specific tropical diseases. RESULTS: Diarrhea, fever, and skin changes are the most common manifestations of disease after travel to tropical and subtropical areas. The diagnostic evaluation should be performed in a series of steps, beginning with a precise travel history and the identification of specific risk factors. Among travelers returning from sub-Saharan Africa, Plasmodium falciparum malaria is the most common cause of fever on presentation to centers for infectious diseases and tropical medicine, affecting approximately 50 per 1000 travelers. Among persons returning from travel to Southeast Asia, dengue fever is the most common infectious disease, affecting 50-160 per 1000 travelers. Further potentially dangerous diseases include chikungunya and zika fever, typhoid and paratyphoid fever, amoebic liver abscess, visceral leishmaniasis (kala-azar), leptospirosis, and, very rarely, imported cases of viral hemorrhagic fever. COVID-19 and influenza are important differential diagnoses. CONCLUSION: The differential diagnosis can be narrowed by thorough history-taking with particular attention to the patient's travel route, combined with a good knowledge of the geographic spread and incubation times of the main tropical diseases. Algorithms help clinicians to focus the diagnostic work-up and select the appropriate further laboratory tests and diagnostic procedures.

3.
Internist (Berl) ; 62(12): 1295-1309, 2021 Dec.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1562463

ABSTRACT

Vaccination is considered one of the most important achievements of modern medicine and has saved millions of lives. As a result, the age-old fear of severe or fatal infectious diseases has largely been forgotten in society; however, the pandemic triggered by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) shows how quickly this fear can return. Also, many people have reservations about medical measures, especially if they are directed against vague dangers. Paradoxically, the success of vaccinations jeopardizes the acceptance. To counteract this development, this article provides information on basic vaccination principles, legal frameworks and components of vaccines. It explains the most important categories, goals, core elements of vaccination programs and the most important recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination at the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO). It explains the current state of knowledge with respect to required resources, assessment of vaccine reactions, complication management and possible vaccine damage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Vaccination
4.
Der Internist ; : 1-15, 2021.
Article in German | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1490260

ABSTRACT

Impfungen gelten als eine der wichtigsten Errungenschaften der modernen Medizin und haben Millionen Menschenleben gerettet. Im Zuge dessen ist die Angst vor schweren Infektionskrankheiten in unserer Gesellschaft weitgehend in Vergessenheit geraten. Die SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie zeigt jedoch, wie schnell dieses Angstgefühl zurückkehren kann. Gleichzeitig hegen viele Menschen Vorbehalte gegenüber medizinischen Maßnahmen, insbesondere wenn sich diese gegen mehr oder weniger abstrakte Gefahren richten. Paradoxerweise gefährdet der Erfolg von Impfungen somit deren Akzeptanz. Um dem entgegenzuwirken, informiert dieser Beitrag über Impfprinzipien, rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen und Impfkomponenten. Er erklärt die wichtigsten Impfstoffkategorien, Ziele und Kernelemente von Impfprogrammen sowie die grundlegenden Empfehlungen der Ständigen Impfkommission und erläutert den Wissensstand zu erforderlichen Ressourcen, Einschätzung von Impfreaktionen, Komplikationsmanagement und möglichen Impfschäden.

5.
J Clin Virol Plus ; 1(3): 100038, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1364220

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM antibodies wane during the first three months after infection and IgG antibody levels decline. This may limit the ability of antibody tests to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection at later time points. To examine if the diagnostic sensitivity of antibody tests falls off, we compared the sensitivity of two nucleoprotein-based antibody tests, the Roche Elecsis II Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and three glycoprotein-based tests, the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, Siemens Atellica IM COV2T and Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 assay with 53 sera obtained 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of the Roche, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and Siemens antibody assays was 94.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.3-98.8%), 98.1 % (95% CI: 89.9-100%) and 100 % (95% CI: 93.3-100%). The sensitivity of the N-based Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and the glycoprotein-based Euroimmun ELISA was 45.3 % (95% CI: 31.6-59.6%) and 83.3% (95% CI: 70.2-91.9%). The nucleoprotein-based Roche and the glycoprotein-based Abbott receptor binding domain (RBD) and Siemens tests were more sensitive than the N-based Abbott and the Euroimmun antibody tests (p = 0.0001 to p = 0.039). The N-based Abbott antibody test was less sensitive 6 months than 4-10 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.0001). The findings show that most SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays correctly identified previous infection 6 months after infection. The sensitivity of pan-Ig antibody tests was not reduced at 6 months when IgM antibodies have usually disappeared. However, one of the nucleoprotein-based antibody tests significantly lost diagnostic sensitivity over time.

6.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ; 40(12): 2645-2649, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1258221

ABSTRACT

SARS CoV-2 antibody assays measure antibodies against the viral nucleoprotein (NP) or spike protein. The study examined if testing of antibodies against both antigens increases the diagnostic sensitivity. Sera (N=98) from infected individuals were tested with ELISAs based on the NP, receptor-binding domain (RBD), or both proteins. The AUROCs were 0.958 (NP), 0.991 (RBD), and 0.992 (NP/RBD). The RBD- and NP/RBD-based ELISAs showed better performance than the NP-based assay. Simultaneous testing for antibodies against NP and RBD increased the number of true and false positives. If maximum diagnostic sensitivity is required, the NP/RBD-based ELISA is preferable. Otherwise, the RBD-based ELISA is sufficient.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/blood , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Nucleoproteins/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Nucleoproteins/chemistry , Protein Domains , SARS-CoV-2/chemistry
7.
J Clin Virol ; 129: 104544, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-634673

ABSTRACT

The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) has been followed by the rapid development of antibody tests. To assess the utility of the tests for clinical use and seroepidemiologic studies, we examined the sensitivity of commercial antibody tests from Roche, Abbott, Novatec, Virotech Siemens, Euroimmun, and Mediagnost in a prospective diagnostic study. The tests were evaluated with 73 sera from SARS CoV-2 RNA positive individuals with mild to moderate disease or asymptomatic infection. Sera were obtained at 2-3 weeks (N = 25) or > 4 weeks (N = 48) after symptom onset and viral RNA test. The overall sensitivity of the tests ranged from 64.4-93.2%. The most sensitive assays recognized 95.8-100 % of the sera obtained after 4 weeks or later. Sera drawn at 2-3 weeks were recognized with lower sensitivity indicating that the optimal time point for serologic testing is later than 3 weeks after onset of the disease. Nucleoprotein- and glycoproteinbased assays had similar sensitivity indicating that tests with both antigens are suitable for serological diagnostics. Breakdown of the test results showed that nucleoprotein- and glycoprotein-based tests of comparable sensitivity reacted with different sets of sera. The observation indicates that a combination of nucleoprotein- and glycoprotein-based tests would increase the percentage of positive results.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antigens, Viral/immunology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Serologic Tests/methods , Viral Structural Proteins/immunology , Betacoronavirus/immunology , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Glycoproteins/immunology , Humans , Nucleoproteins/immunology , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL