Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

Evaluating the Ability to ID (COVID-19) NOW: a Large Real-World Prospective Evaluation of the Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 Assay

The Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 assay is a rapid point-of-care molecular test for SARS-CoV-2 detection. In theory, it has the potential to decrease turnaround times (TATs) and rapidly facilitate patient flow and triage. Reports for its performance have been mixed, likely due to variations in patient cohorts, preanalytical considerations, and study design. We prospectively evaluated the ID NOW performance against reference reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) tests, using dual swabs. Patients presented at a large multisite academic hospital with the highest volumes of COVID-19 admissions in Canada. From 1,968 valid swabs, 186 were true positive, 1,760 were true negative, 21 were false negatives, and 1 was false positive. At 10.5% positivity rate, the positive and negative predictive values were 99.5% and 98.8%, respectively. This led to a modest increase in the pretest probability in this cohort of individuals presenting <7 days of symptom onset. The mean times from collection to laboratory receipt and receipt to reporting were 31 and 23 min, respectively. This reduced TAT observed in our study may assist with triage of admitted patients and breaking the chain of transmission through immediate notification of status. We also observed how test performance changed with prevalence, and thus, how the test is used to "rule in" or "rule out" disease must be considered. Although the ID NOW is regarded as a rapid test, it is not high throughput and requires rapid transportation times (<1 h) that may not be plausible in large centers. The utility of this test should be considered with the observed TAT and interpreted in the context of limitations discussed. IMPORTANCE Rapid testing for COVID-19 has been recognized as one potentially important measure in managing the pandemic. However, these rapid tests vary grossly in their performance and their applicability. There have been many studies evaluating the performance of rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, they are frequently not prospective, and patients are not simultaneously swabbed to compare the reference standard RT-PCR. Previous ID NOW study findings are mixed, which may be due to various factors, including patient, epidemiological, and preanalytical considerations. It is critical to consider how the pretest and posttest probabilities and epidemiological factors may affect the performance as the community prevalence of disease fluctuates during this highly dynamic pandemic. We consider how the ID NOW may be utilized in different settings, with considerations of public health and infection control and prevention risk tolerance.

Limitations of Molecular and Antigen Test Performance for SARS-CoV-2 in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic COVID-19 Contacts

COVID-19 has brought unprecedented attention to the crucial role of diagnostics in pandemic control. We compared severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test performance by sample type and modality in close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases. Close contacts of SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals were enrolled after informed consent. Clinician-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in viral transport media (VTM) were tested with a routine clinical reference nucleic acid test (NAT) and PerkinElmer real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay; positive samples were tested for infectivity using a VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model. Self-collected passive drool was also tested using the PerkinElmer RT-PCR assay. For the first 4 months of study, midturbinate swabs were tested using the BD Veritor rapid antigen test. Between 17 November 2020 and 1 October 2021, 235 close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases were recruited, including 95 with symptoms (82% symptomatic for ≤5 days) and 140 asymptomatic individuals. Reference NATs were positive for 53 (22.6%) participants; 24/50 (48%) were culture positive. PerkinElmer testing of NP and saliva samples identified an additional 28 (11.9%) SARS-CoV-2 cases who tested negative by reference NAT. Antigen tests performed for 99 close contacts showed 83% positive percent agreement (PPA) with reference NAT among early symptomatic persons, but 18% PPA in others; antigen tests in 8 of 11 (72.7%) culture-positive participants were positive. Contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases may be falsely negative early after contact, but more sensitive platforms may identify these cases. Repeat or serial SARS-CoV-2 testing with both antigen and molecular assays may be warranted for individuals with high pretest probability for infection.

When might host heterogeneity drive the evolution of asymptomatic, pandemic coronaviruses?

Controlling many infectious diseases, including SARS-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), requires surveillance followed by isolation, contact-tracing and quarantining. These interventions often begin by identifying symptomatic individuals. However, actively removing pathogen strains causing symptomatic infections may inadvertently select for strains less likely to cause symptomatic infections. Moreover, a pathogen's fitness landscape is structured around a heterogeneous host pool; uneven surveillance efforts and distinct transmission risks across host classes can meaningfully alter selection pressures. Here, we explore this interplay between evolution caused by disease control efforts and the evolutionary consequences of host heterogeneity. Using an evolutionary epidemiology model parameterized for coronaviruses, we show that intense symptoms-driven disease control selects for asymptomatic strains, particularly when these efforts are applied unevenly across host groups. Under these conditions, increasing quarantine efforts have diverging effects. If isolation alone cannot eradicate, intensive quarantine efforts combined with uneven detections of asymptomatic infections (e.g., via neglect of some host classes) can favor the evolution of asymptomatic strains. We further show how, when intervention intensity depends on the prevalence of symptomatic infections, higher removal efforts (and isolating symptomatic cases in particular) more readily select for asymptomatic strains than when these efforts do not depend on prevalence. The selection pressures on pathogens caused by isolation and quarantining likely lie between the extremes of no intervention and thoroughly successful eradication. Thus, analyzing how different public health responses can select for asymptomatic pathogen strains is critical for identifying disease suppression efforts that can effectively manage emerging infectious diseases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11071-022-07548-7.

SARS-CoV-2 Detection Methods

A fast and highly specific detection of COVID-19 infections is essential in managing the virus dissemination networks. The most relevant technologies developed for SARS-CoV-2 detection, along with their advantages and limitations, will be presented and fully explored. Additionally, some of the newest and emerging COVID-19 diagnosis tools, such as biosensing platforms, will also be introduced. Considering the extreme relevance that all these technologies assume in pandemic control, it is of the utmost relevance to have an intrinsic knowledge of the parameters that need to be taken into consideration before choosing the most adequate test for a particular situation. Moreover, the new variants of the virus and their potential impact on the detection method’s effectiveness will be discussed. In order to better manage the pandemic, it is essential to maintain continuous research into the SARS-CoV-2 genome and updated genomic surveillance at the global level. This will allow for timely detection of new mutations and viral variants, which may affect the performance of COVID-19 detection tests.

Recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in patients with haematological malignancies or haematopoietic cell transplantation, from the 2021 European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL 9)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus that spread worldwide from 2019 causing the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterised by an initial viral phase followed in some patients by a severe inflammatory phase. Importantly, immunocompromised patients may have a prolonged viral phase, shedding infectious viral particles for months, and absent or dysfunctional inflammatory phase. Among haematological patients, COVID-19 has been associated with high mortality rate in acute leukaemia, high risk-myelodysplastic syndromes, and after haematopoietic cell transplant and chimeric-antigen-receptor-T therapies. The clinical symptoms and signs were similar to that reported for the overall population, but the severity and outcome were worse. The deferral of immunodepleting cellular therapy treatments is recommended for SARS-CoV-2 positive patient, while in the other at-risk cases, the haematological treatment decisions must be weighed between individual risks and benefits. The gold standard for the diagnosis is the detection of viral RNA by nucleic acid testing on nasopharyngeal-swabbed sample, which provides high sensitivity and specificity; while rapid antigen tests have a lower sensitivity, especially in asymptomatic patients. The prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is based on strict infection control measures recommended for aerosol-droplet-and-contact transmission. Vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 has shown high efficacy in reducing community transmission, hospitalisation and deaths due to severe COVID-19 disease in the general population, but immunosuppressed/haematology patients may have lower sero-responsiveness to vaccinations. Moreover, the recent emergence of new variants may require vaccine modifications and strategies to improve efficacy in these vulnerable patients. Beyond supportive care, the specific treatment is directed at viral replication control (antivirals, anti-spike monoclonal antibodies) and, in patients who need it, to the control of inflammation (dexamethasone, anti-Il-6 agents, and others). However, the benefit of all these various prophylactic and therapeutic treatments in haematology patients deserves further studies.

SARS-CoV-2 Positivity in Ambulatory Symptomatic Patients Is Not Associated With Increased Venous or Arterial Thrombotic Events in the Subsequent 30 Days

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has been associated with increased risk of thromboembolism in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the association of SARS-CoV-2 test positivity and subsequent acute vascular thrombosis, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thrombosis (AT), in a large nationwide registry of emergency department (ED) patients tested with a nucleic acid test for suspected SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

The RECOVER (Registry of Potential COVID-19 in Emergency Care) registry includes 155 EDs across the United States. We performed a retrospective cohort study to produce odds ratios (ORs) for COVID-19-positive vs. COVID-19-negative status as a predictor of 30-day VTE or AT, adjusting for age, sex, active cancer, intubation, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) care.

RESULTS

Comparing 14,056 COVID-19-positive patients with 12,995 COVID-19-negative patients, the overall 30-day prevalence of VTE events was 1.4% vs. 1.3%, respectively (p = 0.44, χ²). Multivariable analysis identified that testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 status was negatively associated with both VTE (OR 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.94) and AT (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.32-0.80), whereas intubation, ICU care, and age 50 years or older were positively associated with both VTE and AT.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to other reports, results from this large, hetereogenous national sample of ED patients tested for SARS-CoV-2, showed no association between vascular thrombosis and COVID-19 test positivity.

Evaluating the performance characteristics of five lateral flow assays for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lateral flow assays (LFAs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen have been proposed as a complementary option to the more costly and time consuming reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We assessed five commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen detecting LFAs (ASSUT EUROPE (Rome, Italy), Besthree (Taizhou, China), Encode (Zhuhai, China), Fortress (Antrim UK), and Hughes Medical (Buckinghamshire, UK), using samples collected from hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 and compared these results against established RT-PCR assays with the aim of estimating test performance characteristics. We performed a diagnostic accuracy study of the five LFAs on 110 inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 and 75 COVID-19 negative control participants. Assay evaluation was performed using a modified version of each manufacturer's protocol allowing for parallel testing of a single sample on multiple assays. Additional variables were studied including infection acquisition, oxygenation requirements at time of swabbing, and patient outcomes. The 110 patients were 48% (53) female, with mean age 67 years (range 26-100 years), and 77% (85) cases were community onset SARS-CoV-2. Across the five assays, sensitivity ranged from 64 (95% CI 53-73) to 76% (95% CI 65-85); Fortress performed best with sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 65-85). Specificity was high across all assays with 4/5 LFAs achieving 100%. LFA sensitivity was not dependant on RT-PCR cycle thresholds. SARS-CoV-2 antigen detecting LFAs may complement RT-PCR testing to facilitate early diagnosis and provide community testing strategies for identification of patients with COVID-19, however we find suboptimal test performance characteristics across a range of commercially available manufacturers, below WHO and MHRA pre-set sensitivity performance thresholds. With such variation in sensitivity between LFAs and PCR testing and between assay brands, we advise caution in the deployment of LFAs outside of environments with clinical oversight.

Clinical analysis on diagnostic accuracy of Bosch Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test and evaluation of cycle threshold at admission for COVID-19 risk assessment

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care (POC) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests have the ability to improve testing efficiency in the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, real-world data on POC tests is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficiency of a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) POC test in a clinical setting and examine the prognostic value of cycle threshold (CT) on admission on the length of hospital stay (LOS) in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Patients hospitalised between January and May 2021 were included in this prospective cohort study. Patients' nasopharyngeal swabs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 with Allplex™2019-nCoV (Seegene Inc.) real-time (RT) PCR assay as gold standard as well as a novel POC test (Bosch Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 [Bosch]) and the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche) accordingly. Clinical sensitivity and specificity as well as inter- and intra-assay variability were analyzed.

RESULTS

120 patients met the inclusion criteria with 46 (38%) having a definite COVID-19 diagnosis by RT-PCR. Bosch Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 POC had a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 96%. The inter- and intra- assay variability was below 15%. The CT value at baseline was lower in patients with LOS ≥ 10 days when compared to patients with LOS < 10 days (27.82 (± 4.648) vs. 36.2 (25.9-39.18); p = 0.0191). There was a negative correlation of CT at admission and LOS (r[44]s = - 0.31; p = 0.038) but only age was associated with the probability of an increased LOS in a multiple logistic regression analysis (OR 1.105 [95% CI, 1.03-1.19]; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that POC testing with Bosch Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 is a valid strategy to identify COVID-19 patients and decrease turnaround time to definite COVID-19 diagnosis. Also, our data suggest that age at admission possibly with CT value as a combined parameter could be a promising tool for risk assessment of increased length of hospital stay and severity of disease in COVID-19 patients.

Pivoting Novel Exosome-Based Technologies for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) initiative to meet the needs for COVID-19 diagnostic and surveillance testing, and to speed its innovation in the development, commercialization, and implementation of new technologies and approaches. The RADx Radical (RADx-Rad) initiative is one component of the NIH RADx program which focuses on the development of new or non-traditional applications of existing approaches, to enhance their usability, accessibility, and/or accuracy for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Exosomes are a subpopulation of extracellular vesicles (EVs) 30–140 nm in size, that are critical in cell-to-cell communication. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has similar physical and molecular properties as exosomes. Therefore, the novel tools and technologies that are currently in development for the isolation and detection of exosomes, may prove to be invaluable in screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral infection. Here, we describe how novel exosome-based technologies are being pivoted for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and/or the diagnosis of COVID-19. Considerations for these technologies as they move toward clinical validation and commercially viable diagnostics is discussed along with their future potential. Ultimately, the technologies in development under the NIH RADx-Rad exosome-based non-traditional technologies toward multi-parametric and integrated approaches for SARS-CoV-2 program represent a significant advancement in diagnostic technology, and, due to a broad focus on the biophysical and biochemical properties of nanoparticles, the technologies have the potential to be further pivoted as tools for future infectious agents.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Diagnostic Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test in relation to RT-PCR Cq Value

Background

Early detection of the SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for both the improvement of turnaround time and limiting the spread of the virus in the community. Thus, this study aims to establish rapid antigen tests as an effective diagnostic tool to improve the testing strategies of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Methods

A laboratory based cross-sectional study was performed on the patients that visited Sukraraj Tropical and Infectious Disease Hospital (STIDH) in Kathmandu, Nepal, from November 2020 to January 2021. A total of 213 nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients for rapid antigen test, followed by RT-PCR assay as reference test for confirmation of COVID-19. A standard questionnaire was administered to collect other information from patients. Data were collected and analyzed using SPSS version 20.

Results

Out of 213 individuals, 75 tested positive in Ag-RDT test, while 118 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA genome via Real time PCR assay. The overall diagnostic performance of Ag-RDT showed 63.6% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity. The diagnostic accuracy of Ag- RDT was 78.9% with κ value 0.590, showing moderate agreement with RT-PCR. Significant difference (p value <0.001) was observed between Ag- RDT+ and Ag- RDT- results when compared to Cq values obtained from RT- PCR.

Conclusion

The promising performance of Ag-RDT renders it useful as screening tool alongside RT-PCR to reduce transmission via improving contact tracing, implementation of local mitigation strategies, and refining existing testing protocol for diagnosis of COVID-19.

How is test laboratory data used and characterised by machine learning models? A systematic review of diagnostic and prognostic models developed for COVID-19 patients using only laboratory data

The current gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, the rRT-PCR test, is hampered by long turnaround times, probable reagent shortages, high false-negative rates and high prices. As a result, machine learning (ML) methods have recently piqued interest, particularly when applied to digital imagery (X-rays and CT scans). In this review, the literature on ML-based diagnostic and prognostic studies grounded on hematochemical parameters has been considered. By doing so, a gap in the current literature was addressed concerning the application of machine learning to laboratory medicine. Sixty-eight articles have been included that were extracted from the Scopus and PubMed indexes. These studies were marked by a great deal of heterogeneity in terms of the examined laboratory test and clinical parameters, sample size, reference populations, ML algorithms, and validation approaches. The majority of research was found to be hampered by reporting and replicability issues: only four of the surveyed studies provided complete information on analytic procedures (units of measure, analyzing equipment), while 29 provided no information at all. Only 16 studies included independent external validation. In light of these findings, we discuss the importance of closer collaboration between data scientists and medical laboratory professionals in order to correctly characterise the relevant population, select the most appropriate statistical and analytical methods, ensure reproducibility, enable the proper interpretation of the results, and gain actual utility by using machine learning methods in clinical practice.

Adequacy of Serial Self-performed SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Testing for Longitudinal Mass Screening in the Workplace

IMPORTANCE

Longitudinal mass testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) for serial screening of asymptomatic persons has been proposed for preventing SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. The feasibility of this strategy relies on accurate self-testing.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the adequacy of serial self-performed SARS-CoV-2 RADT testing in the workplace, in terms of the frequency of correct execution of procedural steps and accurate interpretation of the range of possible RADT results.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective repeated cross-sectional study was performed from July to October 2021 at businesses with at least 2 active cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Montreal, Canada. Participants included untrained persons in their workplace, not meeting Public Health quarantine criteria (ie, required quarantine for 10 days after a moderate-risk contact with someone infected with SARS-CoV-2). Interpretation and performance were compared between participants who received instructions provided by the manufacturer vs those who received modified instructions that were informed by the most frequent or most critical errors we observed. Data were analyzed from October to November 2021.

EXPOSURES

RADT testing using a modified quick reference guide compared with the original manufacturer's instructions.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the difference in correctly interpreted RADT results. Secondary outcomes included difference in proportions of correctly performed procedural steps. Additional analyses, assessed among participants with 2 self-testing visits, compared the second self-test visit with the first self-test visit using the same measures.

RESULTS

Overall, 1892 tests were performed among 647 participants, of whom 278 participants (median [IQR] age, 43 [31-55] years; 156 [56.1%] men) had at least 1 self-testing visit. For self-test visit 1, significantly better accuracy in test interpretation was observed among participants using the modified quick reference guide than those using the manufacturer's instructions for reading results that were weak positive (64 of 115 participants [55.6%] vs 20 of 163 participants [12.3%]; difference, 43.3 [95% CI, 33.0-53.8] percentage points), positive (103 of 115 participants [89.6%] vs 84 of 163 participants [51.5%]; difference, 38.1 [95% CI, 28.5-47.5] percentage points), strong positive (219 of 229 participants [95.6%] vs 274 of 326 participants [84.0%]; difference, 11.6 [95% CI, 6.8-16.3] percentage points), and invalid (200 of 229 participants [87.3%] vs 252 of 326 participants [77.3%]; difference, 10.0 [95% CI, 3.8-16.3] percentage points). Use of the modified guide was associated with improvements on self-test visit 2 for results that were weak positive (difference, 15.4 [95% CI, 0.7-30.1] percentage points), positive (difference, 19.0 [95% CI, 7.2-30.9] percentage points), and invalid (difference, 8.0 [95% CI, 0.8-15.4] percentage points). For procedural steps identified as critical for test validity, adherence to procedural testing steps did not differ meaningfully according to instructions provided or reader experience.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study of self-performed SARS-CoV-2 RADT in an intended-use setting, a modified quick reference guide was associated with significantly improved accuracy in RADT interpretations.

Evaluation of Five Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Tests in a Clinical Setting

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care antigen tests (AgTs) for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) enable the rapid testing of infected individuals and are easy-to-use. However, there are few studies evaluating their clinical use.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical performance characteristics of various commercial SARS-CoV-2 AgTs.

DESIGN

The sensitivity of five AgTs, comprising four rapid antigen tests (RAT; AMP Rapid Test SARS-CoV-2 Ag, NADAL COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test, CLINITEST Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test, and Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test) and one sandwich chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA; LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Assay), were evaluated in 300 nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Reverse transcriptase (RT) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used as a reference method.

PARTICIPANTS

NP swabs were collected from patients admitted to hospital due to COVID-19.

KEY RESULTS

Sensitivities of the AgTs ranged from 64.9 to 91.7% for samples with RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values lower than 30 and were 100% for cycle threshold (Ct) values lower than 20. The highest sensitivity was observed for CLINITEST Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Test, and Roche SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test. Multivariate analysis using time from symptom onset and the Ct value for AgT sensitivity showed an inverse correlation. Further, the female sex was an independent factor of lower RAT sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Antigen tests from NP swab samples show high sensitivity in patients with a Ct value < 20. The best clinical sensitivity can be obtained using AgTs within the first 6 days after symptom onset.

Sense and sensitivity: can an inaccurate test be better than no test at all?

The UK government has put lateral flow antigen tests (LFATs) at the forefront of its strategy to scale-up testing in the coronavirus pandemic. However, evidence from a pilot trial using an LFAT to identify asymptomatic infections in the community suggested that the test missed over half of the positive cases in the tested population. This raises the question of whether it can be ethical to use an inaccurate test to guide public health measures. We begin by explicating different dimensions of test accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and predictive value), and why they matter morally, before highlighting key data from the Liverpool pilot. We argue that the poor sensitivity of the LFAT in this pilot trial suggests that there are important limitations to what we can expect these tests to achieve. A test with low sensitivity will provide false-negative results, and in doing so generate the risk of false assurance and its attendant moral costs. However, we also suggest that the deployment of an insensitive but specific test could identify many asymptomatic carriers of the virus who are currently being missed under existing arrangements. Having outlined ways in which the costs of false reassurance could potentially be mitigated, we conclude that the use of an insensitive LFAT in mass testing may be ethical if (1) it is used predominantly to identify positive cases, (2) it is a cost-effective method of achieving that goal and (3) if other public health tools can effectively prevent widespread false reassurance.

The Usefulness of Antigen Testing in Predicting Contagiousness in COVID-19

Increasing the diagnostic capacity for COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 infection) is required to improve case detection, reduce COVID-19 expansion, and boost the world economy. Rapid antigen detection tests are less expensive and easier to implement, but their diagnostic performance has been questioned compared to reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR). Here, we evaluate the performance of the Standard Q COVID-19 antigen test for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and predicting contagiousness compared to RT-PCR and viral culture, respectively. The antigen test was 100.0% specific but only 40.9% sensitive for diagnosing infection compared to RT-PCR. Interestingly, SARS-CoV-2 contagiousness is highly unlikely with a negative antigen test since it exhibited a negative predictive value of 99.9% compared to viral culture. Furthermore, a cycle threshold (CT) value of 18.1 in RT-PCR was shown to be the one that best predicts contagiousness (area under the curve [AUC], 97.6%). Thus, screening people with antigen testing is a good approach to prevent SARS-CoV-2 contagion and allow returning to daily activities. IMPORTANCE The importance of our results is the excellent agreement between the Standard Q COVID-19 antigen test and the viral culture, indicating that it is important as a marker of contagiousness. Due to its high positive predictive value in situations of a high prevalence of infection, positive results do not require confirmation with another test. Likewise, its high negative predictive value for contagiousness makes possible to use this test as a criterion to discharge patients in isolation and screen people moving into environments that could facilitate the transmission of the virus. Screening people with antigen testing is a good approach to prevent SARS-CoV-2 contagion and allow returning to daily activities.

Mass screening is a key component to fight against SARS-CoV-2 and return to normalcy

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had highly transmissible and pathogenic, which caused serious economic loss and hazard to public health. Different countries have developed strategies to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic that fit their epidemiological situations, capacities, and values. Mass screening combined with control measures rapidly reduced the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically highlighted the essential role of diagnostics capacity in the control of communicable diseases. Mass screening has been increasingly used to detect suspected COVID-19 cases and their close contacts, asymptomatic case, patients attending fever clinics, high-risk populations, employees, even all population to identify infectious individuals. Mass screening is a key component to fight against SARS-CoV-2 and return to normalcy. Here we describe the history of mass screening, define the scope of mass screening, describe its application scenarios, and discuss the impact and challenges of using this approach to control COVID-19. We conclude that through a comprehension screening program and strong testing capabilities, mass screening could help us return to normalcy more quickly.

Hyris bCUBE SARS-CoV-2 rapid molecular saliva testing: a POCT innovation on its way

OBJECTIVES

The reliable identification of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection is the cornerstone for containing viral spread. Rapid molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) of saliva might reduce analysis time, thus increasing the efficacy of contact tracing. In this study, a new POCT RT-PCR assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva was evaluated and compared with an already validated CE-IVD method.

METHODS

An evaluation was made of 160 left-over salivary samples (27 frozen, kept at -80 °C and 133 fresh), collected using Salivette (Sarstedt, Germany). Samples were analyzed by TaqPath COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR kit, QuantStudio5 Real-Time (Applied Biosystems, USA) (TaqPath) and bKIT Virus Finder COVID-19 Saliva (Hyris Global Diagnostics, Italy). Performances of three- and fivefold pooling strategies were also evaluated. Blood assay interference in saliva was also tested with Hyris.

RESULTS

On using TaqPath, SARS-CoV-2 positivity was detected in 35 samples. Another 10 positive samples were artificially-generated by blind mixing of positive with negative samples. Hyris positive and negative percentages of agreement were 97.6 (95% CI: 87.2-99.9%) and 100 (95% CI: 97.0-100%), respectively. Seventeen positive pools, evaluated for threefold strategy, were all correctly determined by both systems. For the 5-pool strategy, 94.7% (18/19) of samples resulted positive with the Hyris system, and 100% with TaqPath. The presence of 1% of blood (v/v) in saliva did not interfere with the accuracy of Hyris assay.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of the bKIT Virus Finder COVID-19 Saliva were optimal with respect to TaqPath. In view of the safe and straightforward pre-analytical procedure involved, and the small size of the Hyris bCube, the Hyris system can be used for POCT.

Ad interim recommendations for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection by the IFCC SARS-CoV-2 variants working group

This document, endorsed by the IFCC Working Group on SARS-CoV-2 Variants, aims to update previous indications for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, taking into consideration the evidence that has emerged after the origin and spread of new lineages and sub-lineages of the virus characterized by mutated genetics and altered biochemical, biological and clinical characteristics. These indications encompass the use of different diagnostic strategies in specific clinical settings, such as high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (symptomatic patients), low risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (asymptomatic subjects) at hospital admission/contact tracing, testing in asymptomatic subjects, in epidemiologic surveys and/or population screening, along with tentative indications for identification of new lineages and/or sub-lineages of SARS-CoV-2.

Comparison between nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen immunofluorescence assay, and in vitro infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis

The number of SARS-CoV-2 detection tests requested to the laboratories has dramatically increased together with an urgent need to release reliable responses in a very short time. The two options taken into consideration and analyzed in the current study were the point-of-care test (POCT) based on the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) and the Antigen (Ag) rapid test. The POCT-NAAT-based assay was compared with a rapid antigen test of nasopharyngeal swab samples. If the specimen tested positive, it was followed by viral load quantification and by the functional assessment of the residual infectivity. When the initial cycle threshold (Ct) was below 20 (100%), and in the range of 20–25 (92%) and of 25–30 (88%), a great concordance between the POCT-NAAT and the Ag test was observed. Moreover, the positivity of the antigen test was well correlated to a successful infection in vitro (78%), with greater concordance when the initial Ct below 20 or above 35 (100%) and in the range 20–25 (83%). Our findings showed that most of the swabs which tested positive using the antigen test were able to infect the cells in vitro, suggesting that probably only these samples hold residual infectivity and therefore an increased risk of virus transmission at the moment of being tested.

Feasibility of a refurbished shipping container as a transportable laboratory for rapid SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics

Background

Australia’s response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic relies on widespread availability of rapid, accurate testing and reporting of results to facilitate contact tracing. The extensive geographical area of Australia presents a logistical challenge, with many of the population located distant from a laboratory capable of robust severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. A strategy to address this is the deployment of a mobile facility utilizing novel diagnostic platforms. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a fully contained transportable SARS-CoV-2 testing laboratory using a range of rapid point-of-care tests.

Method

A 20 ft (6.1 m) shipping container was refurbished (GeneWorks, Adelaide, South Australia) with climate controls, laboratory benches, hand-wash station and a class II biosafety cabinet. Portable marquees situated adjacent to the container served as stations for registration, sample acquisition and personal protective equipment for staff. Specimens were collected and tested on-site utilizing either the Abbott ID NOW or Abbott Panbio rapid tests. SARS-CoV-2 positive results from the rapid platforms or any participants reporting symptoms consistent with COVID-19 were tested on-site by GeneXpert Xpress RT-PCR. All samples were tested in parallel with a standard-of-care RT-PCR test (Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay) performed at the public health reference laboratory. In-laboratory environmental conditions and data management-related factors were also recorded.

Results

Over a 3 week period, 415 participants were recruited for point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 testing. From time of enrolment, the median result turnaround time was 26 min for the Abbott ID NOW, 32 min for the Abbott Panbio and 75 min for the Xpert Xpress. The environmental conditions of the refurbished shipping container were found to be suitable for all platforms tested, although humidity may have produced condensation within the container. Available software enabled turnaround times to be recorded, although technical malfunction resulted in incomplete data capture.

Conclusion

Transportable container laboratories can enable rapid COVID-19 results at the point of care and may be useful during outbreak settings, particularly in environments that are physically distant from centralized laboratories. They may also be appropriate in resource-limited settings. The results of this pilot study confirm feasibility, although larger trials to validate individual rapid point-of-care testing platforms in this environment are required.

Rapid comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests

Purpose

The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products.

Methods

We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison.

Results

Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 10⁸ to 1.8 × 10⁵ SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 10⁶ copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 10⁵ copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 10⁷ copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 10⁸ copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Conclusion

The results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01810-1.

Large-Scale SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing With Real-World Specimens

Real-world data are needed to establish SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) as an effective and reliable approach for SARS-CoV-2 screening. This study included 1,952,931 individuals who provided upper respiratory specimens during SARS-CoV-2 screening at CityMD urgent care locations in the New York metropolitan area from October 2020 to March 2021. Positive and negative results, as determined by the BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Veritor), were obtained for all individuals, with reflex reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing performed on a case-by-case basis, per standard of care. Using verification bias adjustment, two alternative model assumptions were utilized for RAT results with missing reflex RT-PCR results. The worst antigen diagnostic performance estimates asserted that missing RT-PCR results would show a distribution similar to those RT-PCR results actually obtained, based on symptom category. The best antigen diagnostic performance estimates asserted that individuals without RT-PCR results had a clinical presentation consistent with RAT results, and, therefore, missing RT-PCR results would agree with RAT results. For patients with symptoms or high-risk exposure, 25.3% (n = 86,811/343,253) of RAT results were positive; vs. 3.4% (n = 53,046/1,559,733) positive for asymptomatic individuals without high-risk exposure. Reflex RT-PCR results were obtained from 46.3% (n = 158,836/343,253) and 13.8% (n = 215,708/1,559,733) of symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, respectively. RT-PCR confirmed 94.4% (4,265/4,518) of positive and 90.6% (139,759/154,318) of negative RAT results in symptomatic individuals; and confirmed 83.4% (6,693/8,024) of positive and 95.3% (197,955/207,684) of negative RAT results in asymptomatic individuals. Applied assumptions for missing reflex RT-PCR results led to worst performance sensitivity estimates of 77.2 and 38.5% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic populations, respectively; assumptions for best performance estimates led to sensitivity values of 85.6 and 84.2%, respectively. Specificity values, regardless of assumptions or symptom category, ranged from 97.9-99.9%. At 10% SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, RAT positive predictive value was 86.9 and 99.0% for worst and best performance estimates across the total population, respectively; negative predictive values were >95% regardless of the applied assumption. Veritor test performance was consistent with that listed in the manufacturer instructions for use for symptomatic individuals. Real-world evidence should be gathered on RATs to support their efficacy as SARS-CoV-2 persists.

Etiological and pathophysiological enigmas of severe coronavirus disease 2019, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and Kawasaki disease

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a novel multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) has been reported worldwide since the first cases were reported in Europe in April 2020. MIS-C is temporally associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and shows Kawasaki disease (KD)-like features. The epidemiological and clinical characteristics in COVID-19, KD, and MIS-C differ, but severe cases of each disease share similar clinical and laboratory findings such as a protracted clinical course, multiorgan involvement, and similar activated biomarkers. These findings suggest that a common control system of the host may act against severe disease insult. To solve the enigmas, we proposed the protein-homeostasis-system hypothesis in that every disease involves etiological substances and the host's immune system controls them by their size and biochemical properties. Also, it is proposed that the etiological agents of KD and MIS-C might be certain strains in the microbiota of human species and etiological substances in severe COVID-19, KD, and MIS-C originate from pathogen-infected cells. Since disease severity depends on the amounts of inflammation-inducing substances and corresponding immune activation in the early stage of the disease, an early proper dose of corticosteroids and/or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) may help reduce morbidity and possibly mortality among patients with these diseases. Corticosteroids are low cost and an analogue of host-origin cortisol among immune modulators. This study's findings will help clinicians treating severe COVID-19, KD, and MIS-C, especially in developing countries, where IVIG and biologics supplies are insufficient.

A Rapid RT-LAMP Assay for SARS-CoV-2 with Colorimetric Detection Assisted by a Mobile Application

Loop-mediated amplification has been promoted for SARS-CoV-2 screening, however, antigen tests are preferred in low-income countries and remote zones. Poor training in molecular biology, plus the need for RNA purification or reading instruments to overcome issues of sensitivity in colorimetric detection, are some of the reasons limiting the use of this technique. In this study, nasopharyngeal swabs, aspirates and saliva were amplified in an in-house LAMP assay and subject to colorimetric detection, achieved by the naked eye and by image analysis with a mobile application. Accuracy of detection by the naked eye ranged from 61–74% but improved to 75–86% when using the application. Sensitivity of the digital approach was 81% and specificity 83%, with poor positive predictive value, and acceptable negative predictive value. Additionally to the reported effect of some transport media’s pH, the presence of mucus and warming up of reagents while setting up the reaction critically affected performance. Accuracy per type of sample was 55, 70 and 80%, for swabs, aspirates and saliva, respectively, suggesting potential to improve the test in saliva. This assay, carried out in a closed tube, reduces contamination, has few pipetting steps and requires minimal equipment. Strategies to improve performance and implications of the use this sort of colorimetric LAMP for massive testing are discussed.

One year monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in a German cohort of patients with cystic fibrosis

Background

In Germany, the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was registered on 28 January 2020. By February 2021, the third wave of the pandemic began. So far, only few data are available on the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and the clinical impact of an infection in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF).

Methods

From February 2020 until March 2021, we screened 156 CF patients for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (serology) and the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in deep throat saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs (molecular testing). From patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we recorded symptoms and collected clinical data.

Results

In total, 13 patients (8.3%) were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, most of them during the second and the beginning third wave of the pandemic. Ten positive tested patients described symptoms linked to COVID-19. The most common symptom was cough followed by fatigue and headache. SARS-CoV-2 infection did not impair lung function. No positive tested patient needed to be hospitalized.

Conclusions

SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with CF are not as rare as initially anticipated, as frequent testing revealed. However, infected patients did not experience more severe clinical courses or worse clinical outcome. Our observation is in line with published reports indicating that individuals with CF are not at higher risk for severe COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostics Based on Nucleic Acids Amplification: From Fundamental Concepts to Applications and Beyond

COVID-19 pandemic ignited the development of countless molecular methods for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 based either on nucleic acid, or protein analysis, with the first establishing as the most used for routine diagnosis. The methods trusted for day to day analysis of nucleic acids rely on amplification, in order to enable specific SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. This review aims to compile the state-of-the-art in the field of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) used for SARS-CoV-2 detection, either at the clinic level, or at the Point-Of-Care (POC), thus focusing on isothermal and non-isothermal amplification-based diagnostics, while looking carefully at the concerning virology aspects, steps and instruments a test can involve. Following a theme contextualization in introduction, topics about fundamental knowledge on underlying virology aspects, collection and processing of clinical samples pave the way for a detailed assessment of the amplification and detection technologies. In order to address such themes, nucleic acid amplification methods, the different types of molecular reactions used for DNA detection, as well as the instruments requested for executing such routes of analysis are discussed in the subsequent sections. The benchmark of paradigmatic commercial tests further contributes toward discussion, building on technical aspects addressed in the previous sections and other additional information supplied in that part. The last lines are reserved for looking ahead to the future of NAATs and its importance in tackling this pandemic and other identical upcoming challenges.

Diagnostic Performance of Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2: The COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) study

Background

Rapid diagnostic testing for SARS-Cov-2 antigens is used to combat the ongoing pandemic. In this study we aimed to compare two RDTs, the SD Biosensor Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche) and the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott), against rRT-PCR.

Methods

We included 2,215 all-comers at a diagnostic center between February 1 and March 31, 2021. rRT-PCR-positive samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Findings

Three hundred and thirty eight participants (15%) were rRT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. The sensitivities of Roche-RDT and Abbott-RDT were 60.4 and 56.8% (P < 0.0001) and specificities 99.7% and 99.8% (P = 0.076). Sensitivity inversely correlated with rRT-PCR-Ct values. The RDTs had higher sensitivities in individuals referred by treating physicians (79.5%, 78.7%) than in those referred by health departments (49.5%, 44.3%) or tested for other reasons (50%, 45.8%), in persons without any comorbidities (74.4%, 71%) compared to those with comorbidities (38.2%, 34.4%), in individuals with COVID-19 symptoms (75.2%, 74.3%) compared to those without (31.9%, 23.3%), and in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 variants (87.7%, 84%) compared to Alpha variant carriers (77.1%, 72.3%). If 10,000 symptomatic individuals are tested of which 500 are truly positive, the RDTs would generate 38 false-positive and 124 false-negative results. If 10,000 asymptomatic individuals are tested, including 50 true positives, 18 false-positives and 34 false-negatives would be generated.

Interpretation

The sensitivities of the two RDTs for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers are unsatisfactory. Their widespread use may not be effective in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The virus genotype influences the sensitivity of the two RDTs. RDTs should be evaluated for different SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Suspected Tuberculous Pleurisy and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Comorbidity

A 33-year-old woman with a fever, cough, and pharyngitis was admitted after left-sided pleural effusion was detected. The fever and upper respiratory symptoms were confirmed, and she was diagnosed with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) after showing a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. After thoracentesis, pleural fluid revealed elevated adenosine deaminase values and a positive QuantiFeron test; tuberculous pleurisy was thus suspected. Subsequent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR and anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG tests were negative, suggesting that the initial PCR result had been erroneous. However, we were unable to confirm this. Data concerning COVID-19 diagnostics are insufficient at present. It is important to make comprehensive judgments regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients as well as public health.

Direct RT-qPCR Assay for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva Samples

Since mid-2020 there have been complexities and difficulties in the standardisation and administration of nasopharyngeal swabs. Coupled with the variable and/or poor accuracy of lateral flow devices, this has led to increased societal 'testing fatigue' and reduced confidence in test results. Consequently, asymptomatic individuals have developed reluctance towards repeat testing, which remains the best way to monitor COVID-19 cases in the wider population. On the other hand, saliva-based PCR, a non-invasive, highly sensitive, and accurate test suitable for everyone, is gaining momentum as a straightforward and reliable means of detecting SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Here, we provide an itemised list of the equipment and reagents involved in the process of sample submission, inactivation and analysis, as well as a detailed description of how each of these steps is performed.

Long-Term Antibody Response and Vaccination Efficacy in Patients with COVID-19: A Single Center One-Year Prospective Study from the Czech Republic

Background: The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is almost exclusively performed by PCR or antigen detection. The detection of specific antibodies has not yet been considered in official diagnostic guidelines as major laboratory evidence for a case definition. The aim the present study is to analyze antibody responses in outpatient and inpatient cohorts of COVID-19 patients in the Czech Republic over a 12-month period, and assess the potential of antibodies as a diagnostic tool. Methods: A total of 644 patients was enrolled in the prospective study. IgA, IgM and IgG antibody levels, as well as virus neutralization titers, were analyzed over a 12-month period. Results: Our study showed low antibody positivity levels at the admission. However, at 2 weeks after infection, 98.75% and 95.00% of hospitalized patients were IgA and IgG positive, respectively. Even in the outpatient cohort characterized by milder disease courses, the IgG antibody response was still sustained at 9 and 12 months. The data show a high correlation between the IgG levels and virus neutralization titers (VNTs). Samples from later time-points showed positive antibody responses after vaccination in both cohorts characterized by high IgG levels and VNT over 1:640. The samples from unvaccinated persons indicated a relatively high level of reinfection at 6.87%. Conclusions: Our results show that the detection of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 shows an increasing sensitivity from week 2 after infection and remains highly positive over the 12-month period. The levels of IgG antibodies correlate significantly with the VNTs. This suggests that the serological data may be a valuable tool in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A Lab-in-a-Fiber optofluidic device using droplet microfluidics and laser-induced fluorescence for virus detection

Microfluidics has emerged rapidly over the past 20 years and has been investigated for a variety of applications from life sciences to environmental monitoring. Although continuous-flow microfluidics is ubiquitous, segmented-flow or droplet microfluidics offers several attractive features. Droplets can be independently manipulated and analyzed with very high throughput. Typically, microfluidics is carried out within planar networks of microchannels, namely, microfluidic chips. We propose that fibers offer an interesting alternative format with key advantages for enhanced optical coupling. Herein, we demonstrate the generation of monodisperse droplets within a uniaxial optofluidic Lab-in-a-Fiber scheme. We combine droplet microfluidics with laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) detection achieved through the development of an optical side-coupling fiber, which we term a periscope fiber. This arrangement provides stable and compact alignment. Laser-induced fluorescence offers high sensitivity and low detection limits with a rapid response time making it an attractive detection method for in situ real-time measurements. We use the well-established fluorophore, fluorescein, to characterize the Lab-in-a-Fiber device and determine the generation of [Formula: see text] 0.9 nL droplets. We present characterization data of a range of fluorescein concentrations, establishing a limit of detection (LOD) of 10 nM fluorescein. Finally, we show that the device operates within a realistic and relevant fluorescence regime by detecting reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) products in the context of COVID-19 diagnostics. The device represents a step towards the development of a point-of-care droplet digital RT-LAMP platform.

2021-2022 AMMI Canada guidance on the use of antiviral drugs for influenza in the COVID-19 pandemic setting in Canada

We provide an update to the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada seasonal influenza foundation guideline on the use of antiviral drugs for influenza for the upcoming 2021-2022 influenza season in Canada. Peramivir and baloxavir marboxil were licensed in Canada in 2017 and 2020, respectively, but neither is currently marketed. Thus, this guidance continues to focus on further optimizing the use of oseltamivir and zanamivir. Important issues for this year include the implications of co-circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and influenza viruses; the role of diagnostic testing in relation to impact on patient management; and dosing and administration recommendations for neuraminidase inhibitors for various at-risk age groups.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by exhaled breath spectral analysis: Introducing a ready-to-use point-of-care mass screening method

BACKGROUND

The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created an urgent need for rapid, infection screening applied to large numbers of asymptomatic individuals. To date, nasal/throat swab polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is considered the "gold standard". However, this is inconducive to mass, point-of-care (POC) testing due to person discomfort during sampling and a prolonged result turnaround. Breath testing for disease specific organic compounds potentially offers a practical, rapid, non-invasive, POC solution. The study compares the Breath of Health, Ltd. (BOH) breath analysis system to PCR's ability to screen asymptomatic individuals for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The BOH system is mobile and combines Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy with artificial intelligence (AI) to generate results within 2 min and 15 s. In contrast to prior SARS-CoV-2 breath analysis research, this study focuses on diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 via disease specific spectrometric profiles rather than through identifying the disease specific molecules.

METHODS

Asymptomatic emergency room patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 exposure in two leading Israeli hospitals were selected between February through April 2021. All were tested via nasal/throat-swab PCR and BOH breath analysis. In total, 297 patients were sampled (mean age 57·08 ± SD 18·86, 156 males, 139 females, 2 unknowns). Of these, 96 were PCR-positive (44 males, 50 females, 2 unknowns), 201 were PCR-negative (112 males, 89 females). One hundred samples were used for AI identification of SARS-CoV-2 distinguishing spectroscopic wave-number patterns and diagnostic algorithm creation. Algorithm validation was tested in 100 proof-of-concept samples (34 PCR-positive, 66 PCR-negative) by comparing PCR with AI algorithm-based breath-test results determined by a blinded medical expert. One hundred additional samples (12 true PCR-positive, 85 true PCR-negative, 3 confounder false PCR-positive [not included in the 297 total samples]) were evaluated by two blinded medical experts for further algorithm validation and inter-expert correlation.

FINDINGS

The BOH system identified three distinguishing wave numbers for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the first phase, the single expert identified the first 100 samples correctly, yielding a 1:1 FTIR/AI:PCR correlation. The two-expert second-phase also yielded 1:1 FTIR/AI:PCR correlation for 97 non-confounders and null correlation for the 3 confounders. Inter-expert correlation was 1:1 for all results. In total, the FTIR/AI algorithm demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2 detection when compared with PCR.

INTERPRETATION

The SARS-CoV-2 method of breath analysis via FTIR with AI-based algorithm demonstrated high PCR correlation in screening for asymptomatic individuals. This is the first practical, rapid, POC breath analysis solution with such high PCR correlation in asymptomatic individuals. Further validation is required with a larger sample size.

FUNDING

Breath of Health Ltd, Rehovot, Israel provided study funding.

SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow tests for detecting infectious people: linked data analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the proportion of lateral flow tests (LFTs) that produce negative results in those with a high risk of infectiousness from SARS-CoV-2, to investigate the impact of the stage and severity of disease, and to compare predictions made by influential mathematical models with findings of empirical studies.

DESIGN

Linked data analysis combining empirical evidence of the accuracy of the Innova LFT, the probability of positive viral culture or transmission to secondary cases, and the distribution of viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals in different settings.

SETTING

Testing of individuals with symptoms attending NHS Test-and-Trace centres across the UK, residents without symptoms attending municipal mass testing centres in Liverpool, and students without symptoms screened at the University of Birmingham.

PARTICIPANTS

Evidence for the sensitivity of the Innova LFT, based on 70 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 and LFT results. Infectiousness was based on viral culture rates on 246 samples (176 people with SARS-CoV-2) and secondary cases among 2 474 066 contacts; distributions of cycle threshold (Ct) values from 231 497 index individuals attending NHS Test-and-Trace centres; 70 people with SARS-CoV-2 detected in Liverpool and 62 people with SARS-CoV-2 in Birmingham (54 imputed).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The predicted proportions who were missed by LFT and viral culture positive and missed by LFT and sources of secondary cases, in each of the three settings. Predictions were compared with those made by mathematical models.

RESULTS

The analysis predicted that of those with a viral culture positive result, Innova would miss 20% attending an NHS Test-and-Trace centre, 29% without symptoms attending municipal mass testing, and 81% attending university screen testing without symptoms, along with 38%, 47%, and 90% of sources of secondary cases. In comparison, two mathematical models underestimated the numbers of missed infectious individuals (8%, 10%, and 32% in the three settings for one model, whereas the assumptions from the second model made it impossible to miss an infectious individual). Owing to the paucity of usable data, the inputs to the analyses are from limited sources.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of infectious people with SARS-CoV-2 missed by LFTs is substantial enough to be of clinical importance. The proportion missed varied between settings because of different viral load distributions and is likely to be highest in those without symptoms. Key models have substantially overestimated the sensitivity of LFTs compared with empirical data. An urgent need exists for additional robust well designed and reported empirical studies from intended use settings to inform evidence based policy.

The Complexity of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and the COVID-19 Pandemic

The pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) led to the death of millions of people worldwide and thousands more infected individuals developed sequelae due to the disease of the new coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19). The development of several studies has contributed to the knowledge about the evolution of SARS-CoV2 infection and the disease to more severe forms. Despite this information being debated in the scientific literature, many mechanisms still need to be better understood in order to control the spread of the virus and treat clinical cases of COVID-19. In this article, we carried out an extensive literature review in order to bring together, in a single article, the biological, social, genetic, diagnostic, therapeutic, immunization, and even socioeconomic aspects that impact the SAR-CoV-2 pandemic. This information gathered in this article will enable a broad and consistent reading of the main aspects related to the current pandemic.

Limitations of molecular and antigen test performance for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 contacts

OBJECTIVES

COVID-19 has brought unprecedented attention to the crucial role of diagnostics in pandemic control. We compared SARS-CoV-2 test performance by sample type and modality in close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases.

METHODS

Close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals were enrolled after informed consent. Clinician-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in viral transport media (VTM) were tested with a nucleic acid test (NAT). NP VTM and self-collected passive drool were tested using the PerkinElmer real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assay. For the first 4 months of study, mid-turbinate swabs were tested using the BD Veritor rapid antigen test. NAT positive NP samples were tested for infectivity using a VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model.

RESULTS

Between November 17, 2020, and October 1, 2021, 235 close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases were recruited, including 95 with symptoms (82% symptomatic for < 5 days) and 140 asymptomatic individuals. NP swab reference tests were positive for 53 (22.6%) participants; 24/50 (48%) were culture positive. PerkinElmer testing of NP and saliva samples identified an additional 28 (11.9%) SARS-CoV-2 cases who tested negative by clinical NAT. Antigen tests performed for 99 close contacts showed 83% positive percent agreement (PPA) with reference NAT among early symptomatic persons, but 18% PPA in others; antigen tests in 8 of 11 (72.7%) culture-positive participants were positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases may be falsely negative early after contact, which more sensitive platforms may identify. Repeat or serial SARS-CoV-2 testing with both antigen and molecular assays may be warranted for individuals with high pretest probability for infection.

Monitored Implementation of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Screening at Taxi Ranks in Johannesburg, South Africa

Digital tools can support community-based decentralized testing initiatives to broaden access to COVID-19 diagnosis, especially in high-transmission settings. This operational study investigated the use of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for COVID-19 combined with an end-to-end digital health solution, in three taxi ranks in Johannesburg, South Africa. Members of the public were eligible if they were aged ≥18 years, could read, and had a cellphone. Over 15,000 participants, enrolled between June and September 2021, were screened for COVID-19 risk factors. A digital risk questionnaire identified 2061 (13%) participants as moderate risk and 2987 (19%) as high risk, based on symptoms and/or recent exposure to a known case. Of this group referred for testing, 3997 (79%) received Ag-RDTs, with positivity rates of 5.1% in the "high-risk" group and 0.8% in the "moderate-risk" group. A subset of 569 randomly selected participants received additional PCR testing. Sensitivity of the Ag-RDT in this setting was 40% (95% CI: 30.3%, 50.3%); most false negatives had high cycle threshold values (>25), hence low viral loads. Over 80% of participants who tested positive completed a 2-week phone-based follow-up questionnaire. Overall, the digital tool combined with Ag-RDTs enhanced community-based decentralized COVID-19 testing service delivery, reporting and follow-up.

Development, Analytical, and Clinical Evaluation of Rapid Immunochromatographic Antigen Test for SARS-CoV-2 Variants Detection

The antigen rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) is a useful diagnostic tool for the detection and management of COVID-19 spread. Global SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks have highlighted the need for a test capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 variants with high sensitivity and a low limit of detection. This study aimed to develop and evaluate, both analytically and clinically, an antigen rapid diagnostic test (the KestrelTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test) for professional use. A lateral flow immunoassay-based diagnostic test kit was developed, and various aspects of its analytical performance were evaluated. This test kit was clinically evaluated by two independent laboratories and showed closely related results of 96.49% and 98.33% of sensitivity, 100% and 100% of specificity, and 99.01% and 99.44% of accuracy, respectively. A limit of detection was observed at values as low as 0.156 ng/mL for recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. Moreover, the test kit successfully detected the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) of wild-type, Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, Delta-, Epsilon-, Kappa-, and Omicron-variants as positive results. Therefore, the KestrelTM COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test may have potential use for effective COVID-19 screening, surveillance, and infection control in a variety of global SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen diagnostic tests for saliva samples

Using saliva samples would facilitate sample collection, diagnostic feasibility, and mass screening of SARS-CoV-2. We tested two rapid antigen (RAD) immunochromatographic tests designed for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva: Rapid Response™ COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Cassette for oral fluids and DIAGNOS™ COVID-19 Antigen Saliva Test. Evaluation of detection limit was performed with purified SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and live SARS-CoV-2 virus. Sensitivity and specificity were further evaluated with reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) positive and negative saliva samples from hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 (n = 39) and healthcare workers (n = 20). DIAGNOS showed higher sensitivity than Rapid Response for both nucleocapsid protein and live virus. The limit of detection of the saliva test from DIAGNOS was further comparable with the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test designed for nasopharyngeal samples. DIAGNOS and Rapid Response detected nine (50.0%) and seven (38.9%), respectively, of the 18 RT-qPCR positive saliva samples. All RT-qPCR negative saliva (n = 41) were negative with both tests. Only one of the RT-qPCR positive saliva samples contained infectious virus as determined by cell culture and was also positive using the saliva RADs. The results show that the DIAGNOS may be an important and easy-to-use saliva RAD complement to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals, but validation with a larger sample set is warranted.

Analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigenic tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital outbreak situation

The reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) continues to be the reference diagnostic method for the confirmation of COVID-19 cases; however, rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) have recently been developed. The purpose of the study is to assess the performance of rapid antigen-based COVID-19 testing in the context of hospital outbreaks. This was an observational, cross-sectional study. The study period was from October 2020 to January 2021. The "Panbio COVID-19 AG" RADT (Abbott) was performed and TaqPath COVID-19 test RT-PCR. The samples were obtained from hospitalised patients in suspected outbreak situations at the Ramón y Cajal Hospital. A hospital outbreak was defined as the presence of 3 or more epidemiologically linked cases. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the RADT were calculated using RT-PCR as a reference. A total of 17 hospital outbreaks were detected in 11 hospital units during the study period, in which 34 RT-PCR and RADT screenings were performed. We obtained 541 samples, which were analysed with RT-PCR and a further 541 analysed with RADT. Six RADT tests gave conflicting results with the RT-PCR, 5 of them with a negative RADT and positive RT-PCR and one with positive RADT and a negative RT-PCR. The sensitivity of the RADT was 83.3% (65.3-94.4%) and the specificity was 99.8% (98.9-100%). The PPV was 96.2% (80.4-99.9%) and the NPV was 99% (97.7-99.7%). The RADT shows good diagnostic performance in patients on non-COVID-19 hospital wards, in the context of an outbreak.

An alternative approach to determination of Covid-19 personal risk index by using fuzzy logic

COVID-19 disease is an outbreak that seriously affected the whole world, occurred in December 2019, and thus was declared a global epidemic by WHO (World Health Organization). To reduce the impact of the epidemic on humans, it is important to detect the symptoms of the disease in a timely and accurate manner. Recently, several new variants of COVID-19 have been identified in the United Kingdom (UK), South Africa, Brazil and India, and preliminary findings have been suggested that these mutations increase the transmissibility of the virus. Therefore, the aim of this study is to construct a support system based on fuzzy logic for experts to help detect of COVID-19 infection risk in a timely and accurate manner and to get a numerical output on symptoms of the virus from every person. The decision support system consists of three different sub and one main Mamdani type fuzzy inference systems (FIS). Subsystems are Common- Serious symptoms (First), Rare Symptoms (Second) and Personal Information (Third). The first FIS has five inputs, fever-time, cough-time, fatigue-time, shortness of breath and chest pain/dysfunction; the second FIS has four inputs, Loss of Taste/Smell, Body Aches, Conjuctivitis, and Nausea/Vomiting/Diarrhea; and the third FIS has three inputs, Age, Smoke, and Comorbidities. Then, we obtain personal risk index of individual by combining the outputs of these subsystems in a final FIS. The results can be used by health professionals and epidemiologists to make inferences about public health. Numerical output can also be useful for self-control of an individual.

Looking at COVID-19 from a Systems Biology Perspective

The sudden outbreak and worldwide spread of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic pushed the scientific community to find fast solutions to cope with the health emergency. COVID-19 complexity, in terms of clinical outcomes, severity, and response to therapy suggested the use of multifactorial strategies, characteristic of the network medicine, to approach the study of the pathobiology. Proteomics and interactomics especially allow to generate datasets that, reduced and represented in the forms of networks, can be analyzed with the tools of systems biology to unveil specific pathways central to virus-human host interaction. Moreover, artificial intelligence tools can be implemented for the identification of druggable targets and drug repurposing. In this review article, we provide an overview of the results obtained so far, from a systems biology perspective, in the understanding of COVID-19 pathobiology and virus-host interactions, and in the development of disease classifiers and tools for drug repurposing.

Development of rapid antigen test prototype for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva samples

BACKGROUND

The development of easy-to-perform diagnostic methods is highly important for detecting current coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This pilot study aimed at developing a lateral flow assay (LFA)-based test prototype to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus in saliva samples.

METHODS

Mice were immunized using the recombinant receptor-binding domain (rRBD) of SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein. The combinations of the obtained mouse anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) polyclonal antibodies (PAbs) and several commercial antibodies directed against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were used for enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to select antibody pairs for LFA. The antibody pairs were tested in a LFA format using saliva samples from individuals with early SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 9). The diagnostic performance of the developed LFA was evaluated using saliva samples from hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 111); the median time from the onset of symptoms to sample collection was 10 days (0-24 days, interquartile range (IQR): 7-13). The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) was used as a reference method.

RESULTS

Based on ELISA and preliminary LFA results, a combination of mouse anti-RBD PAbs (capture antibody) and rabbit anti-spike PAbs (detection antibody) was chosen for clinical analysis of sample. When compared with rRT-PCR results, LFA exhibited 26.5% sensitivity, 58.1% specificity, 50.0% positive prediction value (PPV), 33.3% negative prediction value (NPV), and 38.7% diagnostic accuracy. However, there was a reasonable improvement in assay specificity (85.7%) and PPV (91.7%) when samples were stratified based on the sampling time.

CONCLUSION

The developed LFA assay demonstrated a potential of SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva samples. Further technical assay improvements should be made to enhance diagnostic performance followed by a validation study in a larger cohort of both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in the early stage of infection.

Postmortem Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests to Predict Infectivity of SARS-CoV-2-Associated Deaths

We investigated the infectivity of 128 severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2-associated deaths and evaluated predictive values of standard diagnostic procedures. Maintained infectivity (20%) did not correlate with viral RNA loads but correlated well with anti-S antibody levels. Sensitivity >90% for antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests supports their usefulness for assessment.

Nanobioengineering: A promising approach for early detection of COVID-19

Unique pneumonia due to an unknown source emerged in December 2019 in the city of Wuhan, China. Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared this condition as a new coronavirus disease-19 also known as COVID-19 on February 11, 2020, which on March 13, 2020 was declared as a pandemic. The virus that causes COVID-19 was found to have a similar genome (80% similarity) with the previously known acute respiratory syndrome also known as SARS-CoV. The novel virus was later named Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 falls in the family of Coronaviridae which is further divided into Nidovirales and another subfamily called Orthocoronavirinae. The four generations of the coronaviruses belongs to the Orthocoronavirinae family that consists of alpha, beta, gamma and delta coronavirus which are denoted as α-CoV, β-CoV, γ-CoV, δ-CoV respectively. The α-CoV and β-CoVs are mainly known to infect mammals whereas γ-CoV and δ-CoV are generally found in birds. The β-CoVs also comprise of SARS-CoV and also include another virus that was found in the Middle East called the Middle East respiratory syndrome virus (MERS-CoV) and the cause of current pandemic SARS-CoV-2. These viruses initially cause the development of pneumonia in the patients and further development of a severe case of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other related symptoms that can be fatal leading to death.

The Use of Antigenic SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Test: The Italian Pediatric Real-Life Experience

In Italy, during the second epidemic wave of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), rapid antigenic (Ag) test at point-of-care (POCT) station were employed to quickly evaluate large numbers of swabs. We collected data of all children who underwent the Ag test in our hospital. All positive patients were recalled to perform reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. A total of 2133 tests were collected over 1 month. Clinical data of 1941 children (median age = 3.7 years) were analyzed: 1343 (69.2%) patients complained of symptoms, 594 (30.6%) had a history of close contact with SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals. Among symptoms reported, acute rhinitis was the most frequent (67.9%), followed by cough (42.6%) and fever (31.5%). Among all tests, 95.8% resulted negative, 4.2% positive: 37/89 were confirmed. In confirmed cases, fever (56.2% vs 32.2%; P = .041) and gastrointestinal symptoms (18.8% vs 6.25%; P = .041) were significantly more frequent compared with negative children. The use of POCT for Ag test seems appropriate for SARS-CoV-2 screening in the pediatric population. In children, fever and gastrointestinal symptoms may constitute red flags of SARS-CoV-2.