Our Team

No abstract available

No abstract available

RESULTSMask and saliva testing specificities were 99% and 100%, respectively. Test sensitivity was 62% for masks, and 81% for saliva (p = 0.16). Median viral RNA shedding duration was 11 days and longer in immunocompromised versus non-immunocompromised patients (22 vs. 11 days, p = 0.06, log-rank test).CONCLUSIONWhile SARS-CoV-2 testing on worn masks appears to be less sensitive compared to saliva, it may be a preferred screening method for individuals who are mandated to wear masks yet averse to more invasive sampling. However, optimized RNA extraction methods and automated procedures are warranted to increase test sensitivity and scalability. We corroborated longer viral RNA shedding in immunocompromised patients.BACKGROUNDExhaled SARS-CoV-2 can be detected on face masks. We compared tests for SARS-CoV-2 RNA on worn face masks and matched saliva samples.METHODSWe conducted this prospective, observational, case-control study between December 2021 and March 2022. Cases comprised 30 in-center hemodialysis patients with recent COVID-19 diagnosis. Controls comprised 13 hemodialysis patients and 25 clinic staff without COVID-19 during the study period and the past 2 months. Disposable 3-layer masks were collected after being worn for 4 hours together with concurrent saliva samples. ThermoFisher COVID-19 Combo Kit (A47814) was used for RT-PCR testing.

RESULTSTwelve anuric patients were studied (six female patients; 44±19 years; dialysis vintage 35.2±28 months). The blood flow was 369±23 ml/min, dialysate flow was 495±61 ml/min, and ultrafiltration volume was 2.8±0.74 L. No significant differences were found regarding the removal of B2M, vitamin B12, and water-soluble solutes between dialytic modalities and dialyzers. Albumin and total protein loss were significantly higher in MCO groups than HFX groups when compared with the same modality. HDF groups had significantly higher albumin and total protein loss than HD groups when compared with the same dialyzer. MCO-HDF showed the highest protein loss among all groups.KEY POINTSHDF and MCO have shown greater clearance of middle-size uremic solutes in comparison with HF dialyzers; MCO has never been studied in HDF. MCO in HDF does not increase the clearance of B2M and results in a higher loss of albumin.CONCLUSIONSMCO-HD is not superior to HFX-HD and HFX-HDF for both middle molecule and water-soluble solute removal. Protein loss was more pronounced with MCO when compared with HFX on both HD and HDF modalities. MCO-HDF has no additional benefits regarding better removal of B2M but resulted in greater protein loss than MCO-HD.BACKGROUNDMiddle molecule removal and albumin loss have been studied in medium cutoff (MCO) membranes on hemodialysis (HD). It is unknown whether hemodiafiltration (HDF) with MCO membranes provides additional benefit. We aimed to compare the removal of small solutes and β2-microglobulin (B2M), albumin, and total proteins between MCO and high-flux (HFX) membranes with both HD and HDF, respectively.METHODSThe cross-over study comprised 4 weeks, one each with postdilutional HDF using HFX (HFX-HDF), MCO (MCO-HDF), HD with HFX (HFX-HD), and MCO (MCO-HD). MCO and HFX differ with respect to several characteristics, including membrane composition, pore size distribution, and surface area (HFX, 2.5 m2; MCO, 1.7 m2). There were two study treatments per week, one after the long interdialytic interval and another midweek. Reduction ratios of vitamin B12, B2M, phosphate, uric acid, and urea corrected for hemoconcentration were computed. Dialysis albumin and total protein loss during the treatment were quantified from dialysate samples.

Omics applications in nephrology may have relevance in the future to improve clinical care of kidney disease patients. In a short term, patients will benefit from specific measurement and computational analyses around biomarkers identified at various omics-levels. In mid term and long term, these approaches will need to be integrated into a holistic representation of the kidney and all its influencing factors for individualized patient care. Research demonstrates robust data to justify the application of omics for better understanding, risk stratification, and individualized treatment of kidney disease patients. Despite these advances in the research setting, there is still a lack of evidence showing the combination of omics technologies with artificial intelligence and its application in clinical diagnostics and care of patients with kidney disease.

RESULTSA total of 26 spent PD dialysate samples were collected from 11 patients from ten dialysis centers. Spent PD dialysate samples were collected, on average, 25±13 days (median, 20; range, 10-45) after the onset of symptoms. The temporal distance of PD effluent collection relative to the closest positive nasal-swab RT-PCR result was 15±11 days (median, 14; range, 1-41). All 26 PD effluent samples tested negative at three SARS-CoV-2 genomic regions.CONCLUSIONSOur findings indicate the absence of SARS-CoV-2 in spent PD dialysate collected at ≥10 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. We cannot rule out the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in spent PD dialysate in the early stage of COVID-19.BACKGROUNDTo date, it is unclear whether SARS-CoV-2 is present in spent dialysate from patients with COVID-19 on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Our aim was to assess the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 in spent dialysate from patients on chronic PD who had a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.METHODSSpent PD dialysate samples from patients on PD who were positive for COVID-19 were collected between March and August 2020. The multiplexed, real-time RT-PCR assay contained primer/probe sets specific to different SARS-CoV-2 genomic regions and to bacteriophage MS2 as an internal process control for nucleic acid extraction. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from patients' electronic health records.

RESULTSForty-two patients had three doses of mRNA1273. Compared to levels prior to the third dose, nAb-WT increased 18-fold (peak at day 23) and nAb-Omicron increased 23-fold (peak at day 24) after the third dose. Peak nAb-WT exceeded peak nAb-Omicron 27-fold. Twenty-one patients had COVID-19 between December 24, 2021, and February 2, 2022. Following COVID-19, nAb-WT and nAb-Omicron increased 12- and 40-fold, respectively. While levels of vaccinal and post-COVID nAb-WT were comparable, post-COVID nAb-Omicron levels were 3.2 higher than the respective peak vaccinal nAb-Omicron. Four immunocompromised patients having reasons other than end-stage kidney disease have very low to no nAb after the third dose or COVID-19.CONCLUSIONSOur results suggest that most hemodialysis patients have a strong humoral response to the third dose of vaccination and an even stronger post-COVID-19 humoral response. Nevertheless, nAb levels clearly decay over time. These findings may inform ongoing discussions regarding a fourth vaccination in hemodialysis patients.BACKGROUNDIn hemodialysis patients, a third vaccination is frequently administered to augment protection against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the newly emerged B.1.1.159 (Omicron) variant may evade vaccinal protection more easily than previous strains. It is of clinical interest to better understand the neutralizing activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants after booster vaccine or COVID-19 infection in these mostly immunocompromised patients.METHODSHemodialysis patients from four dialysis centers were recruited between June 2021 and February 2022. Each patient provided a median of six serum samples. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) against wild type (WT) or Omicron were measured using the GenScript SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test Kit.

AIMSThis narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the global efforts to implement pool testing, specifically for COVID-19 screening.SOURCESData were retrieved from a detailed search for peer-reviewed articles and preprint reports using Medline/PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Google up to 21st March 2021, using search terms "pool testing", "viral", "serum", "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19".IMPLICATIONSThe theory of pool testing is well understood and numerous successful examples from the past are available. Operationalization of pool testing requires sophisticated processes that can be adapted to the local medical circumstances. Special attention needs to be paid to sample collection, sample pooling, and strategies to avoid re-sampling.CONTENTThis review summarizes the history and theory of pool testing. We identified numerous peer-reviewed articles that describe specific details and practical implementation of pool testing. Successful examples as well as limitations of pool testing, in general and specifically related to the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA and antibodies, are reviewed. While promising, significant operational, pre-analytical, logistical, and economic challenges need to be overcome to advance pool testing.BACKGROUNDPool-testing strategies combine samples from multiple people and test them as a group. A pool-testing approach may shorten the screening time and increase the test rate during times of limited test availability and inadequate reporting speed. Pool testing has been effectively used for a wide variety of infectious disease screening settings. Historically, it originated from serological testing in syphilis. During the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, pool testing is considered across the globe to inform opening strategies and to monitor infection rates after the implementation of interventions.

This decision analytical model study examines the feasibility of using pool testing to identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a setting with limited testing availability.