Search

Introduction: The diagnostic tools of nucleic acid amplification tests and antigen tests have been extensively employed for the detection of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although the reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT)-PCR test has high sensitivity and specificity, it is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. On the other hand, antigen tests are simple and prompt, however, their low sensitivity and potential for false positives have been identified as limitations. In light of these factors, the development of novel tests that combine speed and clinical dependability is a promising prospect., Methods: Surface plasmon field-enhanced fluorescence spectroscopy (SPFS) excites chromophores by means of an enhanced electromagnetic field induced on a gold film surface. It enables the highly sensitive measurement of biomarkers in a short and simple 20-min window. In this study, a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) SPFS-based antigen test targeting the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein was performed and evaluated in 25 patients with COVID-19 and 10 non-infected controls., Results: A positive correlation was observed between antigen levels determined by SPFS and RNA levels determined via RT-PCR. The sensitivity values were 100 %, 92 %, and 62.5 %; and the specificity values were 100 %, 90 %, and 100 %; for nasopharyngeal swabs, nasal swabs, and saliva specimens when the cutoff values were set to 65.1, 0.2, and 1.5 pg/mL, respectively. No clinically problematic cross-reactivity with analogous coronaviruses was observed., Conclusions: The SARS-CoV-2 SPFS antigen test showed excellent clinical diagnostic accuracy for nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs, with a rapid turnaround., (Copyright © 2024 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy, Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases, and Japanese Society for Infection Prevention and Control. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA), a natural amino acid that is marketed alongside sodium ferrous citrate (SFC) as a functional food, blocks severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) proliferation in vitro and exerts anti-inflammatory effects. In this phase II open-label, prospective, parallel-group, randomized trial, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 5-ALA in patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019., Methods: This trial was conducted in patients receiving 5-ALA/SFC (250/145 mg) orally thrice daily for 7 days, followed by 5-ALA/SFC (150/87 mg) orally thrice daily for 7 days. The primary endpoints were changes in SARS-CoV-2 viral load, clinical symptom scores, and 5-ALA/SFC safety (adverse events [AE] and changes in laboratory values and vital signs)., Results: A total of 50 patients were enrolled from 8 institutions in Japan. The change in SARS-CoV-2 viral load from baseline was not significantly different between the 5-ALA/SFC (n = 24) and control (n = 26) groups. The duration to improvement was shorter in the 5-ALA/SFC group than in the control group, although the difference was not significant. The 5-ALA/SFC group exhibited faster improvement rates in "taste abnormality," "cough," "lethargy," and "no appetite" than the control group. Eight AEs were observed in the 5-ALA/SFC group, with 22.7% of patients experiencing gastrointestinal symptoms (decreased appetite, constipation, and vomiting). AEs occurred with 750/435 mg/day in 25.0% of patients in the first phase and with 450/261 mg/day of 5-ALA/SFC in 6.3% of patients in the second phase., Conclusion: 5-ALA/SFC improved some symptoms but did not influence the SARS-CoV-2 viral load or clinical symptom scores over 14 days. The safety of 5-ALA/SFC in this study was acceptable. Further evaluation using a larger sample size or modified method is warranted., (Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Nelfinavir, an orally administered inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus protease, inhibits the replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro . We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of nelfinavir in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included unvaccinated asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic adult patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection within 3 days before enrollment. The patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral nelfinavir (750 mg; thrice daily for 14 days) combined with standard-of-care or standard-of-care alone. The primary endpoint was the time to viral clearance, confirmed using quantitative reverse-transcription PCR by assessors blinded to the assigned treatment. A total of 123 patients (63 in the nelfinavir group and 60 in the control group) were included. The median time to viral clearance was 8.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 12.0) days in the nelfinavir group and 8.0 (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.0) days in the control group, with no significant difference between the treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.815; 95% CI, 0.563 to 1.182; P  = 0.1870). Adverse events were reported in 47 (74.6%) and 20 (33.3%) patients in the nelfinavir and control groups, respectively. The most common adverse event in the nelfinavir group was diarrhea (49.2%). Nelfinavir did not reduce the time to viral clearance in this setting. Our findings indicate that nelfinavir should not be recommended in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. The study is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT2071200023). IMPORTANCE The anti-HIV drug nelfinavir suppresses the replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro . However, its efficacy in patients with COVID-19 has not been studied. We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of orally administered nelfinavir in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19. Compared to standard-of-care alone, nelfinavir (750 mg, thrice daily) did not reduce the time to viral clearance, viral load, or the time to resolution of symptoms. More patients had adverse events in the nelfinavir group than in the control group (74.6% [47/63 patients] versus 33.3% [20/60 patients]). Our clinical study provides evidence that nelfinavir, despite its antiviral effects on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro , should not be recommended for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 having no or mild symptoms., Competing Interests: The authors declare a conflict of interest. All authors have completed the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. T. Miyazaki, K.I., K. Yanagihara, H.M., H. Kakeya, T. Matsumoto, and H. Yotsuyanagi have received lecture honoraria from Pfizer and MSD outside this work. N.T. has received lecture honoraria from MSD outside this work. T. Miyazaki, K.I., H.M., and H. Yotsuyanagi have received lecture honoraria from Gilead Sciences outside this work. T. Miyazaki has received a consultation fee from Pfizer and research grants from Pfizer and MSD outside this work. H.M. has received payments for expert testimony from Pfizer, MSD, and Gilead Sciences outside this work. H. Yotsuyanagi serves on the advisory board for Pfizer, MSD, and Gilead Sciences. The other authors have no competing interests. The sponsors and pharmaceutical companies had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and writing of the manuscript.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary for confirming a diagnosis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here we present a COVID-19 case of an elderly woman whose SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests showed false negative repeatedly by evaluating with different sampling sites and procedures. Nasopharyngeal swabs, suctioned sputum, and tongue swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2-PCR. As for tongue swabs, we compared between two different sample conditions; one obtained with dry condition and the other obtained with moistened condition inside the oral cavity. SARS-CoV-2-PCR showed positive for an extended period with suctioned sputum samples compared with nasopharyngeal swabs and tongue swabs. No SARS-CoV-2 from a nasopharyngeal swab sample obtained on day 46 after symptoms onset was isolated despite high viral load (183740.5 copies/5μL). An adequate production of neutralizing antibody in a serum sample on day 46 was also confirmed. The number of RNA copies of the tongue swab samples was higher with moistened condition than with dry condition. The present case suggests that the difference of sampling site or sample condition can affect PCR results. High loads viral RNA detection does not always correlate with infectivity., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Real-time RT-PCR is the most commonly used method for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, serological assays are urgently needed as complementary tools to RT-PCR. Hachim et al. 2020 and Burbelo et al. 2020 demonstrated that anti-nucleocapsid(N) SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are higher and appear earlier than the spike antibodies. Additionally, cross-reactive antibodies against N protein are more prevalent than those against spike protein. We developed a less cross-reactive immunoglobulin G (IgG) indirect ELISA by using a truncated recombinant SARS-CoV-2 N protein as assay antigen. A highly conserved region of coronaviruses N protein was deleted and the protein was prepared using an E. coli protein expression system. A total of 177 samples collected from COVID-19 suspected cases and 155 negative control sera collected during the pre-COVID-19 period were applied to evaluate the assay's performance, with the plaque reduction neutralization test and the commercial SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG ELISA as gold standards. The SARS-CoV-2 N truncated protein-based ELISA showed similar sensitivity (91.1% vs. 91.9%) and specificity (93.8% vs. 93.8%) between the PRNT and spike IgG ELISA, as well as also higher specificity compared to the full-length N protein (93.8% vs. 89.9%). Our ELISA can be used for the diagnosis and surveillance of COVID-19.

Introduction: Numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests exists commercially; however, their performance using clinical samples is limited. Although insufficient to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the early phase of infection, antibody assays can be of great use for surveillance studies or for some coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients presenting late to the hospital., Methods: This study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of four commercial SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antibody tests using 213 serum specimens from 90 PCR-positive confirmed COVID-19 patients. Of 59 negative control sera, 50 were obtained from patients with other respiratory infectious diseases before COVID-19 pandemic began while nine were from patients infected with other respiratory viruses, including two seasonal coronaviruses., Results: The varied sensitivities for the four commercial kits were 70.9%, 65.3%, 45.1%, and 65.7% for BioMedomics, Autobio Diagnostics, Genbody, and KURABO, respectively, between sick days 1 and 155 in COVID-19 patients. The sensitivities of the four tests gradually increased over time after infection before sick day 5 (15.0%, 12.5%, 15.0%, and 20.0%); from sick day 11-15 (95.7%, 87.2%, 53.2%, and 89.4%); and after sick day 20 (100%, 100%, 68.6%, and 96.1%), respectively. For severe illness, the sensitivities were quite high in the late phase after sick day 15. The specificities were over 96% for all four tests. No cross-reaction due to other pathogens, including seasonal coronaviruses, was observed., Conclusions: Our results demonstrated the large differences in the antibody test performances. This ought to be considered when performing surveillance analysis., (Copyright © 2021 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Managing mild illness in COVID-19 and predicting progression to severe disease are concerning issues. Here, we investigated the outcomes of Japanese patients with mild COVID-19, and identified triage risk factors for further hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits at a single tertiary hospital. A triage checklist with 30 factors was used. Patients recommended for isolation were followed up for 10 days for subsequent ED visits or hospital admission. Overall, 338 patients (median age, 44.0; 45% women) visited the clinic 5.0 days (median) after symptom onset. Thirty-six patients were immediately hospitalized following triage; others were isolated. In total, 72 non-hospitalized patients visited the ED during their isolation, and 30 were hospitalized after evaluation for oxygen desaturation. The median ED visit and hospitalization durations after symptom onset were 5.0 and 8.0 days, respectively. The checklist factors associated with hospitalization during isolation were age > 50 years, body mass index > 25 kg/m2, hypertension, tachycardia with pulse rate > 100/min or blood pressure > 135 mmHg at triage, and >3-day delay in hospital visit after symptom onset. No patients died. Altogether, 80% of patients with mild COVID-19 could be safely isolated at home. Age, BMI, underlying hypertension, date after symptom onset, tachycardia, and systolic blood pressure at triage might be related to later hospitalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]