Search

ABSTRACTBordetella pertussisis a Gram-negative bacterium and the causative agent of whooping cough. Despite high vaccination coverage, outbreaks are being increasingly reported worldwide. Possible explanations include adaptation of this pathogen, which may interfere with recognition by the innate immune system. Here, we describe innate immune recognition and responses to different B. pertussisclinical isolates. By using HEK-Blue cells transfected with different pattern recognition receptors, we found that 3 out of 19 clinical isolates failed to activate Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4). These findings were confirmed by using the monocytic MM6 cell line. Although incubation with high concentrations of these 3 strains resulted in significant activation of the MM6 cells, it was found to occur mainly through interaction with TLR2 and not through TLR4. When using live bacteria, these 3 strains also failed to activate TLR4 on HEK-Blue cells, and activation of MM6 cells or human monocyte-derived dendritic cells was significantly lower than activation induced by the other 16 strains. Mass spectrum analysis of the lipid A moieties from these 3 strains indicated an altered structure of this molecule. Gene sequence analysis revealed mutations in genes involved in lipid A synthesis. Findings from this study indicate that B. pertussisisolates that do not activate TLR4 occur naturally and that this phenotype may give this bacterium an advantage in tempering the innate immune response and establishing infection. Knowledge on the strategies used by this pathogen in evading the host immune response is essential for the improvement of current vaccines or for the development of new ones.

ObjectiveTo assess the performance of rapid antigen tests with unsupervised nasal and combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling during the omicron period.DesignProspective cross sectional diagnostic test accuracy study.SettingThree public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands, 21 December 2021 to 10 February 2022.Participants6497 people with covid-19 symptoms aged ≥16 years presenting for testing.InterventionsParticipants had a swab sample taken for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR, reference test) and received one rapid antigen test to perform unsupervised using either nasal self-sampling (during the emergence of omicron, and when omicron accounted for >90% of infections, phase 1) or with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling in a subsequent (phase 2; when omicron accounted for >99% of infections). The evaluated tests were Flowflex (Acon Laboratories; phase 1 only), MPBio (MP Biomedicals), and Clinitest (Siemens-Healthineers).Main outcome measuresThe main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of each self-test, with RT-PCR testing as the reference standard.ResultsDuring phase 1, 45.0% (n=279) of participants in the Flowflex group, 29.1% (n=239) in the MPBio group, and 35.4% ((n=257) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers (previously tested positive by a self-test at own initiative). Overall sensitivities with nasal self-sampling were 79.0% (95% confidence interval 74.7% to 82.8%) for Flowflex, 69.9% (65.1% to 74.4%) for MPBio, and 70.2% (65.6% to 74.5%) for Clinitest. Sensitivities were substantially higher in confirmatory testers (93.6%, 83.6%, and 85.7%, respectively) than in those who tested for other reasons (52.4%, 51.5%, and 49.5%, respectively). Sensitivities decreased from 87.0% to 80.9% (P=0.16 by χ2test), 80.0% to 73.0% (P=0.60), and 83.1% to 70.3% (P=0.03), respectively, when transitioning from omicron accounting for 29% of infections to >95% of infections. During phase 2, 53.0% (n=288) of participants in the MPBio group and 44.4% (n=290) in the Clinitest group were confirmatory testers. Overall sensitivities with combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling were 83.0% (78.8% to 86.7%) for MPBio and 77.3% (72.9% to 81.2%) for Clinitest. When combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling was compared with nasal self-sampling, sensitivities were found to be slightly higher in confirmatory testers (87.4% and 86.1%, respectively) and substantially higher in those testing for other reasons (69.3% and 59.9%, respectively).ConclusionsSensitivities of three rapid antigen tests with nasal self-sampling decreased during the emergence of omicron but was only statistically significant for Clinitest. Sensitivities appeared to be substantially influenced by the proportion of confirmatory testers. Sensitivities of MPBio and Clinitest improved after the addition of oropharyngeal to nasal self-sampling. A positive self-test result justifies prompt self-isolation without the need for confirmatory testing. Individuals with a negative self-test result should adhere to general preventive measures because a false negative result cannot be ruled out. Manufacturers of MPBio and Clinitest may consider extending their instructions for use to include combined oropharyngeal and nasal self-sampling, and other manufacturers of rapid antigen tests should consider evaluating this as well.