Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 210, No. 5-6 ( 2021-12), p. 263-275
    Abstract: A versatile portfolio of diagnostic tests is essential for the containment of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Besides nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POCT) antigen (Ag) tests, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid Ag tests for SARS-CoV-2 have recently been launched. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms and one POCT to detect SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated PCR-positive ( n  = 107) and PCR-negative ( n  = 303) respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients at the end of the second pandemic wave in Germany (February–March 2021) as well as clinical isolates EU1 (B.1.117), variant of concern (VOC) Alpha (B.1.1.7) or Beta (B.1.351), which had been expanded in a biosafety level 3 laboratory. The specificities of automated SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests ranged between 97.0 and 99.7% (Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Fujirebio): 97.03%, Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Roche Diagnostics): 97.69%; LIAISON ® SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Diasorin) and SARS-CoV-2 Ag ELISA (Euroimmun): 99.67%). In this study cohort of hospitalized patients, the clinical sensitivities of tests were low, ranging from 17.76 to 52.34%, and analytical sensitivities ranged from 420,000 to 25,000,000 Geq/ml. In comparison, the detection limit of the Roche Rapid Ag Test (RAT) was 9,300,000 Geq/ml, detecting 23.58% of respiratory samples. Receiver-operating-characteristics (ROCs) and Youden’s index analyses were performed to further characterize the assays’ overall performance and determine optimal assay cutoffs for sensitivity and specificity. VOCs carrying up to four amino acid mutations in nucleocapsid were detected by all five assays with characteristics comparable to non-VOCs. In summary, automated, quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests show variable performance and are not necessarily superior to a standard POCT. The efficacy of any alternative testing strategies to complement nucleic acid-based assays must be carefully evaluated by independent laboratories prior to widespread implementation.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0300-8584 , 1432-1831
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1462140-X
    SSG: 12
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 210, No. 1 ( 2021-02), p. 65-72
    Abstract: Successful containment strategies for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will depend on reliable diagnostic assays. Point-of-care antigen tests (POCT) may provide an alternative to time-consuming PCR tests to rapidly screen for acute infections on site. Here, we evaluated two SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests: the STANDARD™ F COVID-19 Ag FIA (FIA) and the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (RAT). For diagnostic assessment, we used a large set of PCR-positive and PCR-negative respiratory swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic patients and health care workers in the setting of two University Hospitals in Munich, Germany, i.e. emergency rooms, patient care units or employee test centers. For FIA, overall clinical sensitivity and specificity were 45.4% ( n  = 381) and 97.8% ( n  = 360), respectively, and for RAT, 50.3% ( n  = 445) and 97.7% ( n  = 386), respectively. For primary diagnosis of asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals, diagnostic sensitivities were 60.9% (FIA) ( n  = 189) and 64.5% (RAT) ( n  = 256). This questions these tests’ utility for the reliable detection of acute SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, in particular in high-risk settings. We support the proposal that convincing high-quality outcome data on the impact of false-negative and false-positive antigen test results need to be obtained in a POCT setting. Moreover, the efficacy of alternative testing strategies to complement PCR assays must be evaluated by independent laboratories, prior to widespread implementation in national and international test strategies.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0300-8584 , 1432-1831
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1462140-X
    SSG: 12
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 212, No. 1 ( 2023-02), p. 13-23
    Abstract: During 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic has been dominated by the variant of concern (VoC) Omicron (B.1.1.529) and its rapidly emerging subvariants, including Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are part of national testing strategies to identify SARS-CoV-2 infections on site in a community setting or to support layman’s diagnostics at home. We and others have recently demonstrated an impaired RAT detection of infections caused by Omicron-BA.1 compared to Delta. Here, we evaluated the performance of five SARS-CoV-2 RATs in a single-centre laboratory study examining a total of 140 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive respiratory swab samples, 70 Omicron-BA.1 and 70 Omicron-BA.2, as well as 52 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative swabs collected from March 8th until April 10th, 2022. One test did not meet minimal criteria for specificity. In an assessment of the analytical sensitivity in clinical specimen, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 4.2 × 10 4 to 9.2 × 10 5 RNA copies subjected to the RAT for Omicron-BA.1 compared to 1.3 × 10 5 to 1.5 × 10 6 for Omicron-BA.2. Overall, intra-assay differences for the detection of Omicron-BA.1-containing and Omicron-BA.2-containing samples were non-significant, while a marked overall heterogeneity among the five RATs was observed. To score positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 22-fold (LoD50) or 68-fold (LoD95) higher viral loads were required for the worst performing compared to the best performing RAT. The rates of true-positive test results for these Omicron subvariant-containing samples in the highest viral load category (Ct values  〈  25) ranged between 44.7 and 91.1%, while they dropped to 8.7 to 22.7% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25–30). In light of recent reports on the emergence of two novel Omicron-BA.2 subvariants, Omicron-BA.2.75 and BJ.1, awareness must be increased for the overall reduced detection rate and marked differences in RAT performance for these Omicron subvariants.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0300-8584 , 1432-1831
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1462140-X
    SSG: 12
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 212, No. 5 ( 2023-10), p. 307-322
    Abstract: Diagnostic tests for direct pathogen detection have been instrumental to contain the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Automated, quantitative, laboratory-based nucleocapsid antigen (Ag) tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been launched alongside nucleic acid-based test systems and point-of-care (POC) lateral-flow Ag tests. Here, we evaluated four commercial Ag tests on automated platforms for the detection of different sublineages of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VoC) (B.1.1.529) in comparison with “non-Omicron” VoCs. A total of 203 Omicron PCR-positive respiratory swabs (53 BA.1, 48 BA.2, 23 BQ.1, 39 XBB.1.5 and 40 other subvariants) from the period February to March 2022 and from March 2023 were examined. In addition, tissue culture-expanded clinical isolates of Delta (B.1.617.2), Omicron-BA.1, -BF.7, -BN.1 and -BQ.1 were studied. These results were compared to previously reported data from 107 clinical “non-Omicron” samples from the end of the second pandemic wave (February to March 2021) as well as cell culture-derived samples of wildtype (wt) EU-1 (B.1.177), Alpha VoC (B.1.1.7) and Beta VoC (B.1.351)). All four commercial Ag tests were able to detect at least 90.9% of Omicron-containing samples with high viral loads (Ct  〈  25). The rates of true-positive test results for BA.1/BA.2-positive samples with intermediate viral loads (Ct 25–30) ranged between 6.7% and 100.0%, while they dropped to 0 to 15.4% for samples with low Ct values ( 〉  30). This heterogeneity was reflected also by the tests’ 50%-limit of detection (LoD50) values ranging from 44,444 to 1,866,900 Geq/ml. Respiratory samples containing Omicron-BQ.1/XBB.1.5 or other Omicron subvariants that emerged in 2023 were detected with enormous heterogeneity (0 to 100%) for the intermediate and low viral load ranges with LoD50 values between 23,019 and 1,152,048 Geq/ml. In contrast, detection of “non-Omicron” samples was more sensitive, scoring positive in 35 to 100% for the intermediate and 1.3 to 32.9% of cases for the low viral loads, respectively, corresponding to LoD50 values ranging from 6181 to 749,792 Geq/ml. All four assays detected cell culture-expanded VoCs Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron subvariants carrying up to six amino acid mutations in the nucleocapsid protein with sensitivities comparable to the non-VoC EU-1. Overall, automated quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays are not more sensitive than standard rapid antigen tests used in POC settings and show a high heterogeneity in performance for VoC recognition. The best of these automated Ag tests may have the potential to complement nucleic acid-based assays for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in settings not primarily focused on the protection of vulnerable groups. In light of the constant emergence of new Omicron subvariants and recombinants, most recently the XBB lineage, these tests’ performance must be regularly re-evaluated, especially when new VoCs carry mutations in the nucleocapsid protein or immunological and clinical parameters change.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0300-8584 , 1432-1831
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1462140-X
    SSG: 12
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: Infection, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 50, No. 2 ( 2022-04), p. 381-394
    Abstract: To determine risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers (HCWs), characterize symptoms, and evaluate preventive measures against SARS-CoV-2 spread in hospitals. Methods In a cross-sectional study conducted between May 27 and August 12, 2020, after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we obtained serological, epidemiological, occupational as well as COVID-19-related data at a quaternary care, multicenter hospital in Munich, Germany. Results 7554 HCWs participated, 2.2% of whom tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Multivariate analysis revealed increased COVID-19 risk for nurses (3.1% seropositivity, 95% CI 2.5–3.9%, p  = 0.012), staff working on COVID-19 units (4.6% seropositivity, 95% CI 3.2–6.5%, p  = 0.032), males (2.4% seropositivity, 95% CI 1.8–3.2%, p  = 0.019), and HCWs reporting high-risk exposures to infected patients (5.5% seropositivity, 95% CI 4.0–7.5%, p  = 0.0022) or outside of work (12.0% seropositivity, 95% CI 8.0–17.4%, p   〈  0.0001). Smoking was a protective factor (1.1% seropositivity, 95% CI 0.7–1.8% p  = 0.00018) and the symptom taste disorder was strongly associated with COVID-19 (29.8% seropositivity, 95% CI 24.3–35.8%, p   〈  0.0001). An unbiased decision tree identified subgroups with different risk profiles. Working from home as a preventive measure did not protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection. A PCR-testing strategy focused on symptoms and high-risk exposures detected all larger COVID-19 outbreaks. Conclusion Awareness of the identified COVID-19 risk factors and successful surveillance strategies are key to protecting HCWs against SARS-CoV-2, especially in settings with limited vaccination capacities or reduced vaccine efficacy.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0300-8126 , 1439-0973
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2006315-5
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 212, No. 5 ( 2023-10), p. 323-337
    Abstract: Since late 2021, the variant landscape of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been dominated by the variant of concern (VoC) Omicron and its sublineages. We and others have shown that the detection of Omicron-BA.1 and -BA.2-positive respiratory specimens by rapid antigen tests (RATs) is impaired compared to Delta VoC-containing samples. Here, in a single-center retrospective laboratory study, we evaluated the performance of ten most commonly used RATs for the detection of Omicron-BA.4 and -BA.5 infections. We used 171 respiratory swab specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RNA-positive patients, of which 71 were classified as BA.4 and 100 as BA.5. All swabs were collected between July and September 2022. 50 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative samples from healthy individuals, collected in October 2022, showed high specificity in 9 out of 10 RATs. When assessing analytical sensitivity using clinical specimens, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 7.6 × 10 4 to 3.3 × 10 6 RNA copies subjected to the RATs for BA.4 compared to 6.8 × 10 4 to 3.0 × 10 6 for BA.5. Overall, intra-assay differences for the detection of these two Omicron subvariants were not significant for both respiratory swabs and tissue culture-expanded virus isolates. In contrast, marked heterogeneity was observed among the ten RATs: to be positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 443-fold (BA.4) and up to 56-fold (BA.5) higher viral loads were required for the worst performing RAT compared to the best performing RAT. True-positive rates for Omicron-BA.4- or -BA.5-containing specimens in the highest viral load category ( C t values  〈  25) ranged from 94.3 to 34.3%, dropping to 25.6 to 0% for samples with intermediate C t values (25–30). We conclude that the high heterogeneity in the performance of commonly used RATs remains a challenge for the general public to obtain reliable results in the evolving Omicron subvariant-driven pandemic.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0300-8584 , 1432-1831
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1462140-X
    SSG: 12
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: Cell Reports, Elsevier BV, Vol. 37, No. 13 ( 2021-12), p. 110169-
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2211-1247
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2649101-1
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    In: Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 211, No. 2-3 ( 2022-06), p. 105-117
    Abstract: Since autumn 2020, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been implemented in several countries as an important pillar of the national testing strategy to rapidly screen for infections on site during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The current surge in infection rates around the globe is driven by the variant of concern (VoC) omicron (B.1.1.529). Here, we evaluated the performance of nine SARS-CoV-2 RATs in a single-centre laboratory study. We examined a total of 115 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative and 166 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive respiratory swab samples (101 omicron, 65 delta (B.1.617.2)) collected from October 2021 until January 2022 as well as cell culture-expanded clinical isolates of both VoCs. In an assessment of the analytical sensitivity in clinical specimen, the 50% limit of detection (LoD50) ranged from 1.77 × 10 6 to 7.03 × 10 7 RNA copies subjected to the RAT for omicron compared to 1.32 × 10 5 to 2.05 × 10 6 for delta. To score positive in these point-of-care tests, up to 10-fold (LoD50) or 101-fold (LoD95) higher virus loads were required for omicron- compared to delta-containing samples. The rates of true positive test results for omicron samples in the highest virus load category (Ct values  〈  25) ranged between 31.4 and 77.8%, while they dropped to 0–8.3% for samples with intermediate Ct values (25–30). Of note, testing of expanded virus stocks suggested a comparable RAT sensitivity of both VoCs, questioning the predictive value of this type of in vitro-studies for clinical performance. Given their importance for national test strategies in the current omicron wave, awareness must be increased for the reduced detection rate of omicron infections by RATs and a short list of suitable RATs that fulfill the minimal requirements of performance should be rapidly disclosed.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0300-8584 , 1432-1831
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1462140-X
    SSG: 12
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages