No abstract

No abstract

Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR is a vital public health tool in the pandemic. Self-collected samples are increasingly used as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. Several studies suggested that they are sufficiently sensitive to be a useful alternative. However, there are limited data directly comparing several different types of self-collected materials to determine which material is preferable. A total of 102 predominantly symptomatic adults with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection self-collected native saliva, a tongue swab, a mid-turbinate nasal swab, saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad and gargle lavage, within 48 h of initial diagnosis. Sample collection was unsupervised. Both native saliva and gargling with tap water had high diagnostic sensitivity of 92.8% and 89.1%, respectively. Nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 85.1%, which was not significantly inferior to saliva (p = 0.092), but 16.6% of participants reported they had difficult in self-collection of this sample. A tongue swab and saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad had a significantly lower sensitivity of 74.2% and 70.2%, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity was not related to the presence of clinical symptoms or to age. When comparing self-collected specimens from different material, saliva, gargle lavage or mid-turbinate nasal swabs may be considered for most symptomatic patients. However, complementary experiments are required to verify that differences in performance observed among the five sampling modes were not attributed to collection impairment.

Multiple nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) are available for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical specimens, including Laboratory Developed Tests (LDT), commercial high-throughput assays and point-of-care tests. Some assays were just recently released and there is limited data on their clinical performance. We compared the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid) and Vivalytic VRI Panel (Schnelltest COVID-19) (Bosch) point-of-care tests with four high-throughput assays and one LDT, the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test (Roche), the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene), the SARS-CoV-2 AMP (Abbott) Kit, the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit 1.0 (altona) as well as an assay using a SARS-CoV-2 RdRP gene specific primer and probe based protocol from Corman et al. (Corman et al., 2020). Samples from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, samples from the first and second SARS-CoV-2-PCR External Quality Assessment (EQA) (INSTAND e.V.) and a 10-fold serial dilution of a SARS-CoV-2 cell culture (SARS-CoV-2 Frankfurt 1) supernatant were examined. We determined that the NAT assays examined had a high specificity. Assays using the N gene as target demonstrated the highest sensitivity in the serial dilution panel, while all examined NAT assays showed a comparable sensitivity when testing clinical and EQA samples.

No abstract

In the summer of 2020, we investigated the rate of inapparent shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in a representative sample of day care centers from Hesse, Germany, and found a low positivity rate during a period of low local community spread. To investigate the influence of a high local incidence setting, we conducted the SAFE KiDS 2 study. 577 children and 334 staff members of 47 daycare centers were tested for respiratory and gastrointestinal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, and three infections with SARS-CoV-2 in the infectious period were detected. We conclude that viral shedding occurred infrequently while the original "wild-type" variant was dominant. The more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variant Alpha (B.1.1.7) became the dominant strain after the SAFE KiDS 2 was concluded. The SAFE KiDS 3 study investigated the impact of the Alpha variant of SARS-Co-2 on inapparent viral shedding in the day care setting. In this study, 756 children and 226 staff members from 46 day care centers provided self-collected saliva swabs, the so-called "Lollipop" swabs, which were tested by RT-PCR. In the four-week study period, none of the participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, demonstrating that inapparent shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in the day care setting was also rare during the dominance of the Alpha variant. The influence of the variant of concern Delta on day care centers has yet to be examined.

HIV-1 diversity poses major challenges to viral load assays because genetic polymorphisms can impede nucleic acid detection. In addition to the on-going viral diversification within the HIV-1 group M pandemic, HIV-1 genetic diversity is further increased by non-group M infections, such as HIV-1 groups O (HIV-1-O), N and P. We here conducted a systematic evaluation of commercially available PCR assays to detect HIV-1-O isolates. We collected 25 primary HIV-1-O isolates covering all genetic clusters within HIV-1-O. Subsequently, this panel of isolates was tested on eight commercially available quantitative and five qualitative HIV-1 PCR-based assays in serial dilutions. Sequence analyses were performed for severe cases of underquantification or lack of detection. We observed differences between the assays in quantification that depended on the HIV-1-O isolate's subgroup. All three tested HIV-1-O subgroup IV isolates were underquantified by the Roche CAP/CTM >800-fold compared to the Abbott RealTime assay. In contrast, the latter assay underquantified several subgroup I isolates >200-fold. Notably, the Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load test from Cepheid failed to detect two of the HIV-1-O isolates, whereas the Roche Cobas 8800 assay readily detected all isolates. Comparative sequence analyses identified polymorphisms in the HIV-1-O long-terminal repeat and integrase genes that likely underlie inadequate nucleic acid amplification. Potential viral load underquantification should be considered in therapeutic monitoring of HIV-1-O-infected patients. Pre-clinical assessments of HIV-1 diagnostic assays could be harmonized by establishing improved and internationally standardized panels of HIV-1 isolates that cover the dynamic diversity of circulating HIV-1 strains.

Zusammenfassung In den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten hat die Diagnostik viraler Infektionen wesentlich an Bedeutung gewonnen. Neben kostengünstigen Untersuchungen ist es insbesondere für den Arzt und die Patienten wichtig, schnelle und richtige Untersuchungsergebnisse von den Laboratorien zu erhalten. Die Richtigkeit der Untersuchungsergebnisse hängt von verschiedenen Faktoren ab. Besonders wichtig ist die Eignung und Leistungsfähigkeit des benutzten Tests bzw. Untersuchungsverfahrens. Gemäß der DIN EN ISO 15189 „Medizinische Laboratorien – besondere Anforderungen an die Qualität und Kompetenz“ und der In-vitro-Diagnostika-Richtlinie dürfen nur Tests bzw. Untersuchungsverfahren eingesetzt werden, deren Eignung und Leistungsfähigkeit ermittelt und nachgewiesen wurde. Die Darlegung der Eignung und Leistungsfähigkeit – die so genannte Validierung – wird allerdings in beiden Dokumenten nur in allgemeiner Form angesprochen. Für den Bereich der Virusdiagnostik wurde daher ein Leitfaden erstellt, in dem die Mindestanforderungen an die Validierung konkretisiert werden. Dabei wird zwischen kommerziellen CE-gekennzeichneten Tests und In-house-Tests sowie zwischen den verschiedenen in der Virusdiagnostik zur Anwendung kommenden Methoden unterschieden.