Background In a subgroup of patients suffering from progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), which is an inflammation-mediated neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system (CNS), B cell aggregates were discovered within the meninges. Occurrence of these structures was associated with a more severe disease course and cortical histopathology. We have developed the B cell-dependent MP4-induced experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) as a mouse model to mimic this trait of the human disease. The aim of this study was to determine a potential role of lymphoid tissue inducer (LTi) and T H 17 cells in the process of B cell aggregate formation in the MP4 model. Methods We performed flow cytometry of cerebellar and splenic tissue of MP4-immunized mice in the acute and chronic stage of the disease to analyze the presence of CD3 − CD5 − CD4 + RORγt + LTi and CD3 + CD5 + CD4 + RORγt + T H 17 cells. Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG):35–55-induced EAE was used as B cell-independent control model. We further determined the gene expression profile of B cell aggregates using laser capture microdissection, followed by RNA sequencing. Results While we were able to detect LTi cells in the embryonic spleen and adult intestine, which served as positive controls, there was no evidence for the existence of such a population in acute or chronic EAE in neither of the two models. Yet, we detected CD3 − CD5 − CD4 − RORγt + innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) and T H 17 cells in the CNS, the latter especially in the chronic stage of MP4-induced EAE. Moreover, we observed a unique gene signature in CNS B cell aggregates compared to draining lymph nodes of MP4-immunized mice and to cerebellum as well as draining lymph nodes of mice with MOG:35–55-induced EAE. Conclusion The absence of LTi cells in the cerebellum suggests that other cells might take over the function as an initiator of lymphoid tissue formation in the CNS. Overall, the development of ectopic lymphoid organs is a complex process based on an interplay between several molecules and signals. Here, we propose some potential candidates, which might be involved in the formation of B cell aggregates in the CNS of MP4-immunized mice.

Background PCR testing is considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis but its results are earliest available hours to days after testing. Rapid antigen tests represent a diagnostic tool enabling testing at the point of care. Rapid antigen tests have mostly been validated by the manufacturer or in controlled laboratory settings only. External validation at the point of care, particularly in general practice where the test is frequently used, is needed. Furthermore, it is unclear how well point of care tests are accepted by the practice staff. Methods In this prospective multicenter validation study in primary care, general practitioners included adult individuals presenting with symptoms suggesting COVID-19. Each patient was tested by the general practitioner, first with a nasopharyngeal swab for the point of care test (Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test) and then with a second swab for PCR testing. Using the RT-PCR result as a reference, we calculated specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, with their 95% confidence intervals. General practitioners and medical assistants completed a survey to assess feasibility and usefulness of the point of care tests. Results In 40 practices in Würzburg, Germany, 1518 patients were recruited between 12/2020 and 06/2021. The point of care test achieved a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 99.5% compared to RT-PCR. With a prevalence of 9.5%, the positive predictive value was 93.9% and the negative predictive value was 97.8%. General practitioners rated the point of care test as a helpful tool to support diagnostics in patients with signs and symptoms suggestive for infection, particularly in situations where decision on further care is needed at short notice. Conclusion The point of care test used in this study showed a sensitivity below the manufacturer’s specification (Sensitivity 96.25%) in the practice but high values for specificity and high positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Although widely accepted in the practice, measures for further patient management require a sensitive interpretation of the point of care test results.

Background PCR testing is considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis but its results are earliest available hours to days after testing. Rapid antigen tests represent a diagnostic tool enabling testing at the point of care. To date, most rapid antigen tests were validated by the manufacturer or in controlled laboratory settings only. External validation at the point of care, particularly in general practice where the test is frequently used, is needed. Furthermore, it is unclear how well point of care tests are accepted by the practice staff. Methods In this prospective multicenter validation study in primary care, general practitioners included adult individuals presenting with symptoms suggesting COVID-19. Each patient was tested first with a nasopharyngeal swab for the point of care test and then with a second swab for PCR testing. Using the RT-PCR result as a reference, we calculated specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, with their 95% confidence intervals. General practitioners and medical assistants completed a survey to assess feasibility and usefulness of the point of care tests. Results In 40 practices in Würzburg, Germany, 1518 patients were recruited between 12/2020 and 06/2021. The point of care test achieved a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 99.5% compared to RT-PCR. With a prevalence of 9.5%, the positive predictive value was 93.9% and the negative predictive value was 97.8%. General practitioners rated the point of care test as a helpful tool to support diagnostics in patients with signs and symptoms suggestive for infection, particularly in situations where decision on further care is needed at short notice. Conclusion The point of care test used in this study showed a sensitivity below the manufacturer's specification (Sensitivity 96.25%) in the practice but high values for specificity and high positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Although widely accepted in the practice, measures for further patient management require a sensitive interpretation of the point of care test results.