Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 128
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
J Virol Methods ; 300: 114430, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1568897

ABSTRACT

WHO 20/136 is standard reference material for SARS-COV-2 serology assays. Standardization of serology assays that target the same antigen and class of immunoglobulin will enable comparison of results between studies that use various lab-developed and commercial assays around the world. Standardization of assays will help better define immune correlates of protection and possibly immune correlates of vaccine efficacy. Two automated SARS-COV-2 anti-S1 RBD immunoglobulin serology assays on the Atellica IM Analyzer were calibrated to WHO 20/136 Standard Reference Material which was assigned 1000 binding antibody units (BAU/mL). The anti-S1 RBD IgG assay (sCOVG) cut-off Index of 1.00 corresponded to WHO 45.1 BAU/mL, and the anti-S1 RBD Ig Total assay (COV2T) cut-off Index of 1.00 corresponded to WHO 6.70 BAU/mL.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Reference Standards , World Health Organization
2.
J Med Virol ; 93(12): 6808-6812, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544312

ABSTRACT

Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 is the mainstay of COVID-19 diagnosis, yet there are conflicting reports on its diagnostic performance. Wide ranges of false-negative PCR tests have been reported depending on clinical presentation, the timing of testing, specimens tested, testing method, and reference standard used. We aimed to estimate the frequency of discordance between initial nasopharyngeal (NP) PCR and repeat NP sampling PCR and serology in acutely ill patients admitted to the hospital. Panel diagnosis of COVID-19 infection is further utilized in discordance analysis. Included in the study were 160 patients initially tested by NP PCR with repeat NP sampling PCR and/or serology performed. The percent agreement between initial and repeat PCR was 96.7%, while the percent agreement between initial PCR and serology was 98.9%. There were 5 (3.1%) cases with discordance on repeat testing. After discordance analysis, 2 (1.4%) true cases tested negative on initial PCR. Using available diagnostic methods, discordance on repeat NP sampling PCR and/or serology is a rare occurrence.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Nasopharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Adult , COVID-19 Testing/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Reference Standards , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling/methods
4.
J Breath Res ; 16(1)2021 11 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475719

ABSTRACT

Due to COVID-19 travel disruptions, the International Association of Breath Research hosted the planned 2021 Breath Summit virtually as a symposium with oral and poster presentations. The event was comprised of a week-long social media asynchronous online event for sharing research abstracts, posters and discussions. Subsequently, there were two days of real-time webinar platform interactions each featuring three technical presentations, open forum questions, answers, and commentary. The symposium was well attended and well received. It allowed the breath community to share new research and to reconnect with colleagues and friends. This report presents an overview of the topics presented and various salient discussion points.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Breath Tests , Humans , Reference Standards , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Cell ; 184(23): 5699-5714.e11, 2021 11 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466093

ABSTRACT

Extension of the interval between vaccine doses for the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was introduced in the United Kingdom to accelerate population coverage with a single dose. At this time, trial data were lacking, and we addressed this in a study of United Kingdom healthcare workers. The first vaccine dose induced protection from infection from the circulating alpha (B.1.1.7) variant over several weeks. In a substudy of 589 individuals, we show that this single dose induces severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses and a sustained B and T cell response to the spike protein. NAb levels were higher after the extended dosing interval (6-14 weeks) compared with the conventional 3- to 4-week regimen, accompanied by enrichment of CD4+ T cells expressing interleukin-2 (IL-2). Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection amplified and accelerated the response. These data on dynamic cellular and humoral responses indicate that extension of the dosing interval is an effective immunogenic protocol.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Vaccines, Synthetic/immunology , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Priming/immunology , Dose-Response Relationship, Immunologic , Female , Humans , Immunity , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Linear Models , Male , Middle Aged , Reference Standards , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , T-Lymphocytes/immunology , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
6.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 5753, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1447302

ABSTRACT

Patients with COVID-19 shed SARS-CoV-2 RNA in stool, sometimes well after their respiratory infection has cleared. This may be significant for patient health, epidemiology, and diagnosis. However, methods to preserve stool, and to extract and quantify viral RNA are not standardized. We test the performance of three preservative approaches at yielding detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA: the OMNIgene-GUT kit, Zymo DNA/RNA shield kit, and the most commonly applied, storage without preservative. We test these in combination with three extraction kits: QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit, Zymo Quick-RNA Viral Kit, and MagMAX Viral/Pathogen Kit. We also test the utility of ddPCR and RT-qPCR for the reliable quantification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from stool. We identify that the Zymo DNA/RNA preservative and the QiaAMP extraction kit yield more detectable RNA than the others, using both ddPCR and RT-qPCR. Taken together, we recommend a comprehensive methodology for preservation, extraction and detection of RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses in stool.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/standards , Feces/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/diagnosis , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics , Humans , Phosphoproteins/genetics , Preservation, Biological/standards , RNA, Viral/analysis , RNA, Viral/genetics , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , Reference Standards , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Specimen Handling/standards , Viral Load/standards
7.
J Clin Virol ; 144: 104985, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1437501

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Timely and accurate diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is crucial to reduce the risk of viral transmission. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and a hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (HSROC) of RADTs were pooled using meta-analysis. We used commercial and laboratory-developed reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as reference standards. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies comprising 14,188 patients. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of RADTs for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were 0.68 (95%CI, 0.59 - 0.76), 0.99 (95%CI, 0.99 - 1.00), and 426.70 (95% CI, 168.37 - 1081.65), respectively. RADTs and RT-PCR had moderate agreement with an estimated pooled Cohen's kappa statistic of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.74-0.77), and area under the HSROC of 0.98 (95%CI, 0.96 - 0.99). The pooled sensitivity of RADTs was significantly increased in subjects with viral load of Ct-value ≤25 or in those within 5 days after symptom onset than it was in subjects with lower viral loads or longer symptom duration. CONCLUSIONS: The overall sensitivity of RADTs was inferior to that of the RT-PCR assay. The RADTs were more sensitive for samples of Ct-value ≤ 25 and might be suitable for subjects in the community within 5 days of symptom onset.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reference Standards , Sensitivity and Specificity
8.
Rev Esp Quimioter ; 34(6): 618-622, 2021 Dec.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1436597

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (Ag) detection for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mildly infected or asymptomatic patients. METHODS: Observational study to evaluate diagnostic tests. Non-hospitalized patients with indication for diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. The diagnostic test to be evaluated was the determination of Ag and as a reference standard to determine the presence of viral RNA the RT-PCR was used. RESULTS: A total of 494 patients were included. Of these 71.5% (353/494) had symptoms and 28.5% (141/494) were asymptomatic (presurgery screening (35/494) and confirmed case-contact (106/494). The overall sensitivity of the Ag test was 61.1% and the specificity was 99.7%. The sensitivity and specificity in the asymptomatic group were 40% and 100% respectively, and in the symptomatic group 63.5% and 99.6% respectively. In turn, the sensitivity and specificity in the group of symptomatic patients varied according to the time of symptom evolution: in patients with recent symptoms, they were 71.4% and 99.6% respectively, while in patients with symptoms of more than 5 days of evolution, they were 26.7% and 100% respectively. In all groups studied, the presence of antigen is associated with a high viral load (Ct<30 cycles). CONCLUSIONS: The use of Ag detection test is not indicated for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic patients or with symptoms of more than 5 days of evolution, but it could be useful in patients with symptoms of 1-5 days of evolution.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , False Positive Reactions , Humans , Reference Standards , Sensitivity and Specificity
9.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0257350, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1435609

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 has spread worldwide and has become a global health problem. As a result, the demand for inputs for diagnostic tests rose dramatically, as did the cost. Countries with inadequate infrastructure experience difficulties in expanding their qPCR testing capacity. Therefore, the development of sensitive and specific alternative methods is essential. This study aimed to develop, standardize, optimize, and validate conventional RT-PCR targeting the N gene of SARS-CoV-2 in naso-oropharyngeal swab samples compared to qPCR. Using bioinformatics tools, specific primers were determined, with a product expected to be 519 bp. The reaction conditions were optimized using a commercial positive control, and the detection limit was determined to be 100 fragments. To validate conventional RT-PCR, we determined a representative sampling of 346 samples from patients with suspected infection whose diagnosis was made in parallel with qPCR. A sensitivity of 92.1% and specificity of 100% were verified, with an accuracy of 95.66% and correlation coefficient of 0.913. Under current Brazilian conditions, this method generates approximately 60% savings compared to qPCR costs. Conventional RT-PCR, validated herein, showed sufficient results for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and can be used as an alternative for epidemiological studies and interspecies correlations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Nose/virology , Nucleocapsid Proteins/genetics , Oropharynx/virology , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Adolescent , Brazil , COVID-19/virology , DNA Primers/genetics , Female , Humans , Male , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , RNA, Viral/genetics , Reference Standards , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling/methods
10.
J Virol Methods ; 298: 114291, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1433621

ABSTRACT

At the time SARS-CoV-2 was identified as the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) no in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests were available since it was a new virus. Very shortly after the release of the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) were developed, made available and implemented in several laboratories in the Netherlands and globally. In this study, the performance of an E-gene Sarbeco specific real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) was verified on the open modus of the geneLEAD VIII sample-to-answer platform. The results obtained from 134 clinical samples, of which 63 had been tested positive, showed almost complete concordance compared to the same PCR on the routine diagnostic systems and that was validated according to the national reference standard. The only discordant sample tested positive using the routine diagnostic workflow with a cycle threshold (CT) value of 37.7, while the sample tested negative using the geneLEAD VIII workflow. In addition, good performance was achieved in analyzing a blinded SARS-CoV-2 external quality assurance (EQA) panel. Implementation of the geneLEAD VIII platform as routine diagnostic tool resulted in testing 871 clinical samples with 115 positive results. In conclusion, the geneLEAD VIII SARS-CoV-2 workflow presented in this study showed excellent diagnostic performance and with a rapid turnaround time of approximately two hours it proved a valuable option for STAT SARS-CoV-2 testing in the absence of (rapid, CE-IVD) point-of-care testing platforms.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Point-of-Care Testing , Reference Standards , Sensitivity and Specificity
11.
Minerva Cardiol Angiol ; 69(4): 374-376, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1431236
12.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0257560, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430541

ABSTRACT

Certain clinical indications and treatments such as the use of rasburicase in cancer therapy and 8-aminoquinolines for Plasmodium vivax malaria treatment would benefit from a point-of-care test for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. Three studies were conducted to evaluate the performance of one such test: the STANDARD™ G6PD Test (SD BIOSENSOR, South Korea). First, biological interference on the test performance was evaluated in specimens with common blood disorders, including high white blood cell (WBC) counts. Second, the test precision on fingerstick specimens was evaluated against five individuals of each, deficient, intermediate, and normal G6PD activity status. Third, clinical performance of the test was evaluated at three point-of-care settings in the United States. The test performed equivalently to the reference assay in specimens with common blood disorders. High WBC count blood samples resulted in overestimation of G6PD activity in both the reference assay and the STANDARD G6PD Test. The STANDARD G6PD Test showed good precision on multiple fingerstick specimens from the same individual. The same G6PD threshold values (U/g Hb) were applied for a semiquantitative interpretation for fingerstick- and venous-derived results. The sensitivity/specificity values (95% confidence intervals) for the test for G6PD deficiency were 100 (92.3-100.0)/97 (95.2-98.2) and 100 (95.7-100.0)/97.4 (95.7-98.5) for venous and capillary specimens, respectively. The same values for females with intermediate (> 30% to ≤ 70%) G6PD activity were 94.1 (71.3-99.9)/88.2 (83.9-91.7) and 82.4 (56.6-96.2)/87.6(83.3-91.2) for venous and capillary specimens, respectively. The STANDARD G6PD Test enables point-of-care testing for G6PD deficiency.


Subject(s)
Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency/diagnosis , Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase/blood , Point-of-Care Systems/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Blood Specimen Collection , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase/genetics , Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase/standards , Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency/complications , Hematologic Diseases/complications , Hemoglobins/analysis , Humans , Leukocyte Count , Male , Middle Aged , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , Reference Standards , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
13.
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am ; 31(4): 727-742, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1427945

ABSTRACT

Quality metrics and standardization has become critical as the Affordable Care Act mandates that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services change reimbursement from volume to a value-based system. While the most commonly used quality indicators are related to that of colonoscopy, quality metrics for other procedures and endoscopy units have been developed mainly by the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Data to show that these quality metrics, especially in the field of advanced endoscopy as well as in the era of COVID-19 pandemic, can improve patient outcomes, are anticipated.


Subject(s)
Benchmarking , COVID-19 , Aged , Colonoscopy , Humans , Medicare , Pandemics , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Reference Standards , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
15.
J Ultrasound Med ; 40(1): 213-214, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1381923
16.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 3061, 2021 05 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1387342

ABSTRACT

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has triggered global efforts to develop therapeutics. The main protease of SARS-CoV-2 (Mpro), critical for viral replication, is a key target for therapeutic development. An organoselenium drug called ebselen has been demonstrated to have potent Mpro inhibition and antiviral activity. We have examined the binding modes of ebselen and its derivative in Mpro via high resolution co-crystallography and investigated their chemical reactivity via mass spectrometry. Stronger Mpro inhibition than ebselen and potent ability to rescue infected cells were observed for a number of derivatives. A free selenium atom bound with cysteine of catalytic dyad has been revealed in crystallographic structures of Mpro with ebselen and MR6-31-2 suggesting hydrolysis of the enzyme bound organoselenium covalent adduct and formation of a phenolic by-product, confirmed by mass spectrometry. The target engagement with selenation mechanism of inhibition suggests wider therapeutic applications of these compounds against SARS-CoV-2 and other zoonotic beta-corona viruses.


Subject(s)
Azoles/pharmacology , Coronavirus 3C Proteases/antagonists & inhibitors , Organoselenium Compounds/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/enzymology , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Azoles/chemistry , Catalytic Domain , Coronavirus 3C Proteases/metabolism , Crystallography, X-Ray , Cysteine/chemistry , Hydrolysis , Isoindoles , Models, Molecular , Organoselenium Compounds/chemistry , Protease Inhibitors/chemistry , Protease Inhibitors/pharmacology , Reference Standards , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Salicylanilides/chemistry , Salicylanilides/pharmacology , Selenium/metabolism
19.
PLoS Med ; 18(8): e1003735, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1354750

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Age Factors , Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/etiology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/standards , Carrier State/diagnosis , Carrier State/virology , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , Reference Standards , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral Load
20.
Int J Mol Sci ; 22(15)2021 Jul 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1346496

ABSTRACT

qRT-PCR still remains the most widely used method for quantifying gene expression levels, although newer technologies such as next generation sequencing are becoming increasingly popular. A critical, yet often underappreciated, problem when analysing qRT-PCR data is the selection of suitable reference genes. This problem is compounded in situations where up to 25% of all genes may change (e.g., due to leukocyte invasion), as is typically the case in ARDS. Here, we examined 11 widely used reference genes for their suitability in commonly used models of acute lung injury (ALI): ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), in vivo and ex vivo, lipopolysaccharide plus mechanical ventilation (MV), and hydrochloric acid plus MV. The stability of reference gene expression was determined using the NormFinder, BestKeeper, and geNorm algorithms. We then proceeded with the geNorm results because this is the only algorithm that provides the number of reference genes required to achieve normalisation. We chose interleukin-6 (Il-6) and C-X-C motif ligand 1 (Cxcl-1) as the genes of interest to analyse and demonstrate the impact of inappropriate normalisation. Reference gene stability differed between the ALI models and even within the subgroup of VILI models, no common reference gene index (RGI) could be determined. NormFinder, BestKeeper, and geNorm produced slightly different, but comparable results. Inappropriate normalisation of Il-6 and Cxcl1 gene expression resulted in significant misinterpretation in all four ALI settings. In conclusion, choosing an inappropriate normalisation strategy can introduce different kinds of bias such as gain or loss as well as under- or overestimation of effects, affecting the interpretation of gene expression data.


Subject(s)
Acute Lung Injury/genetics , Algorithms , Disease Models, Animal , Gene Expression Profiling/standards , Gene Expression Regulation , Genetic Markers , Acute Lung Injury/pathology , Animals , Female , Mice , Reference Standards
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...