Introduction. Cytomegalovirus is the most common cause of infections in the post-transplantation period. A reliable and timely laboratory diagnosis of cytomegalovirus infection in patients on dialysis and in the post-transplantation period is significant because of the possibility of preventing or mitigating the effects of cytomegalovirus disease. The main objective of this study was to compare serological and molecular polymerase chain reaction methods to determine the presence of cytomegalovirus in the blood of dialysis patients. Material and Methods. The study included 28 dialysis patients, potential renal transplant recipients. All patients were evaluated for the presence of cytomegalovirus in the blood by a quantitative polymerase chain reaction method as well as in the serum for the presence of anti-cytomegalovirus Immunoglobulin G and Immunoglobulin M antibodies. Results. According to the comparative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detecting antibodies in dialysis patients, 96.4% were once exposed to the virus, while 7.1% showed current infection not confirmed by polymerase chain reaction test. No statistically significant association was found between the positive finding of anti-cytomegalovirus Immunoglobulin M antibodies and the findings of the polymerase chain reaction cytomegalovirus method when Chi-square (χ2) and Fisher’s correlation tests were conducted (p > 0.05). Conclusion. Due to 7.1% false positives results for the presence of anti-cytomegalovirus Immunoglobulin M antibodies in the serum of immunocompromised dialysis patients, not confirmed by polymerase chain reaction test, serological techniques are not reliable in detecting active cytomegalovirus infection causing positive finding of anti-cytomegalovirus Immunoglobulin M, so confirmation of cytomegalovirus deoxyribonucleic acid by polymerase chain reaction method is required.

The objective of this study was to compare performance of two authorized tests, the Abbott Real Time SARS–CoV-2 (ACOV) assay (Abbott Molecular Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA) and Liferiver Novel Coronavirus Real Time Multiplex RT-PCR (Liferiver 2019-...

Introduction/Objective. Based on the World Health Organization guidelines, the current "gold standard" to diagnose Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is reverse transcription-quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). The objective of this study was to compare and analyze the detection performance of two different authorized SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection assays: the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 (ACOV) assay and the BGI Real-Time Fluorescent RT-PCR (BGI) kit. Methods. Our study included 384 randomly selected nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs previously tested by the ACOV and subsequently tested by the BGI kit for detecting SARS-CoV-2. All patients were adult individuals with symptoms or suspected of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Results. We found that the ACOV assay detected more cases of COVID-19 infection than the BGI assay. The positive percent agreement was 98.3% (95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 95.7-99.3%), while Cohen’s Kappa coefficient (Kappa) was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.91), indicating a strong level of agreement between these two tests. The negative percent agreement was 85.1% (95% CI: 78.3-90%), while 5.47% of cases were false negative using the BGI test to detect SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivity of the BGI test compared to Abbott was 91.73% (95% CI: 87.64-94.81%), and the specificity of the BGI test was 96.77% (95% CI: 91.95-99.11%). Conclusion. The Abbott kit showed a bit better diagnostic performance, and due to possible false negative results using the BGI test, we recommend complete testing with the ACOV test.

Handling clinical samples from patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection puts healthcare workers at risk of exposure to infectious particles. To reduce this risk, samples are often heat-inactivated before nucleic acid isolation, but this procedure may affect the analytical sensitivity of the test. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the effects of heat inactivation (56 °C for 30 min) on RT-qPCR results of samples taken from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NP/OP) swabs collected from 200 symptomatic patients. Each sample was split into two aliquots – one subjected to heat inactivation and the other stored at 4 °C – followed by nucleic acid isolation and RT-qPCR analysis using the GeneFinder COVID-19 nucleic acid test. Heat inactivation did not significantly affect the overall SARS-CoV-2 detection rate (55.5 % vs. 55.0 % in untreated and heat-treated groups; χ ² =0.01; p=0.91). However, discrepancies occurred in 15.3 % of samples, all with quantification cycle (Cq) values >31, including target loss, gain, or complete signal disappearance after heat treatment. Heat inactivation also slightly decreased Cq values for the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase ( RdRp ) and envelope ( E ) genes and increased those for the nucleocapsid ( N ) gene, with significant changes in strongly positive samples (Cq≤33). In positive samples (Cq≤40), the human ribonuclease ( RNase ) P gene also exhibited significantly higher Cq values after heat treatment. In the strongly positive subgroup, correlation analysis showed moderate correlation for RdRp and very strong correlation for the N and E genes, and a weaker correlation for weakly positive samples. In conclusion, heat inactivation at 56 °C for 30 min does not significantly affect viral gene detection but may diminish it in samples with low viral load.

Early, rapid and reliable identification of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is crucial for successful control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The quantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay is considered the gold standard for molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical performances of the three authorized tests - the Abbott Real Time SARS-CoV-2 (ACOV) assay (Abbott Molecular Inc., North Chicago, IL), GeneFinder™ COVID-19 Plus RealAmp (GeneFinder) Kit (OSANG Healthcare Co., Ltd, Dongan-gu Anyang, Korea) and the Biomerieux ARGENE® SARS-COV-2 R-GENE® real-time detection (ARGENE) kit (bioMérieux SA., Marcyl’Étoile, France) and to determine whether the selection of targeted genes has an impact on test's specificity. In this study, we included 155 nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) from adult individuals with symptoms or suspected of COVID-19, aged from 17 to 91 years, previously tested by the ACOV and subsequently tested by the GeneFinder and the ARGENE. In this comparative analysis, we found that the GeneFinder assay detected the most cases of COVID-19 infection, followed by the ACOV assay, and then by ARGENE. Positive agreement ranged from 74.74% to 95.41%, with the strongest agreement observed between the GeneFinder and ACOV assays - 95.41% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 89.37%-98.36%) indicating an excellent agreement between these two tests and the lowest agreement between the GeneFinder and ARGENE assay - 74.74% (95% CI: 65.08%-81.41%). The negative percent agreement was 100% (GeneFinder/ACOV, GeneFinder/ARGENE and ACOV/ARGENE). Only 3.2% of cases were false-negative using the ACOV test, while 18.0% of samples were false-negative using the ARGENE assay to detect SARS-CoV-2. Combined usage of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 and the GeneFinder assays can be applied to maximize SARS-CoV-2 detection accuracy.

High-dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) has been investigated as a potential adjunctive therapy in critical illness, including sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and COVID-19. Despite a strong mechanistic rationale, clinical trials have yielded inconsistent results. From a clinical pharmacology perspective, this variability may reflect, at least in part, differences in pharmacokinetic exposure, timing of administration, and patient selection rather than a lack of biological activity. Intravenous administration enables plasma concentrations in the millimolar range (≈1–5 mM), far exceeding those achievable with oral dosing (<100 µM), thereby reaching thresholds required for pharmacodynamic effects on oxidative stress, immune signaling, and endothelial function. This exposure-dependent transition distinguishes vitamin C as a pharmacological agent rather than a nutritional supplement in critically ill populations. Therapeutic response may be influenced by timing relative to disease progression, with earlier administration representing a biologically plausible strategy that warrants prospective evaluation rather than a clinically established therapeutic window. Interindividual variability in transporter function, redox status, and genetic background may further contribute to heterogeneous responses. Biomarkers such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, and markers of endothelial injury provide a framework for patient stratification and monitoring of pharmacodynamic effects. Integrated with pharmacokinetic principles, these markers support a shift toward biomarker-guided, precision-based therapeutic strategies. This review synthesizes current clinical and mechanistic evidence through an exposure–response conceptual framework, framing HDIVC as a context-dependent pharmacological intervention and advancing a shift toward biomarker-guided, precision-based therapeutic strategies in critical illness.