Development and Potential Usefulness of the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip Diagnostic Assay in a Pandemic Context

Think of the Children: Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test in Pediatric Population

BACKGROUND

Real-time reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the reference laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection then requires equipment and is time-consuming. There is a crucial demand for rapid techniques such as antigen detection test. Considering the different diagnostic accuracy of tests with other respiratory viruses in adults and children, SARS-CoV-2 antigen test must be evaluated specifically in children.

METHODS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (Abbott) as a point-of-care test for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to RT-qPCR in a pediatric population.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty nasopharyngeal swabs were tested. Amongst the 18 positive RT-qPCR samples, 14 were detected by the rapid antigen test, given an overall sensitivity of 77.7%. All the samples detected positive with the antigen rapid test were also positive with RT-qPCR.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity of Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device is lower in children than in adults. Nevertheless, considering the good values of specificity, negative and positive predictive values this test could be used as a frontline test to obtain quick results, although the negative values with COVID-19 high clinical suspicion should be confirmed using RT-qPCR.

Diagnosis value of SARS-CoV-2 antigen/antibody combined testing using rapid diagnostic tests at hospital admission

The implementation of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) may enhance the efficiency of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing, as RDTs are widely accessible and easy to use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a diagnosis strategy based on a combination of antigen and immunoglobulin M (IgM) or immunoglobulin G (IgG) serological RDTs. Plasma and nasopharyngeal samples were collected between 14 March and 11 April 2020 at hospital admission from 45 patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 and 20 negative controls. SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) was assessed in nasopharyngeal swabs using the Coris Respi-Strip. For IgM/IgG detection, SureScreen Diagnostics and Szybio Biotech RDTs were used in addition to laboratory assays (Abbott Alinity i SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Theradiag COVID-19 IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). Using the Ag RDT, 13 out of 45 (29.0%) specimens tested positive, the sensitivity was 87.0% for cycle threshold (Ct ) values ≤25% and 0% for Ct values greater than 25. IgG detection was associated with high Ct values and the amount of time after the onset of symptoms. The profile of isolated IgM on RDTs was more frequently observed during the first and second week after the onset of symptoms. The combination of Ag and IgM/IgG RDTs enabled the detection of up to 84.0% of COVID-19 confirmed cases at hospital admission. Antigen and antibody-based RDTs showed suboptimal performances when used alone. However when used in combination, they are able to identify most COVID-19 patients admitted in an emergency department.

SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Tests: Algorithm and Field Evaluation From the Near Patient Testing to the Automated Diagnostic Platform

Introduction: Since the first wave of COVID-19 in Europe, new diagnostic tools using antigen detection and rapid molecular techniques have been developed. Our objective was to elaborate a diagnostic algorithm combining antigen rapid diagnostic tests, automated antigen dosing and rapid molecular tests and to assess its performance under routine conditions. Methods: An analytical performance evaluation of four antigen rapid tests, one automated antigen dosing and one molecular point-of-care test was performed on samples sent to our laboratory for a SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR. We then established a diagnostic algorithm by approaching median viral loads in target populations and evaluated the limit of detection of each test using the PCR cycle threshold values. A field performance evaluation including a clinical validation and a user-friendliness assessment was then conducted on the antigen rapid tests in point-of-care settings (general practitioners and emergency rooms) for outpatients who were symptomatic for <7 days. Automated antigen dosing was trialed for the screening of asymptomatic inpatients. Results: Our diagnostic algorithm proposed to test recently symptomatic patients using rapid antigen tests, asymptomatic patients using automated tests, and patients requiring immediate admission using molecular point-of-care tests. Accordingly, the conventional reverse transcription PCR was kept as a second line tool. In this setting, antigen rapid tests yielded an overall sensitivity of 83.3% (not significantly different between the four assays) while the use of automated antigen dosing would have spared 93.5% of asymptomatic inpatient screening PCRs. Conclusion: Using tests not considered the "gold standard" for COVID-19 diagnosis on well-defined target populations allowed for the optimization of their intrinsic performances, widening the scale of our testing arsenal while sparing molecular resources for more seriously ill patients.

COVID-19 Antibody Tests and Their Limitations

COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has developed into a global health crisis, causing over 2 million deaths and changing people's daily life the world over. Current main-stream diagnostic methods in the laboratory include nucleic acid PCR tests and direct viral antigen tests for detecting active infections, and indirect human antibody tests specific to SARS-CoV-2 to detect prior exposure. In this Perspective, we briefly describe the PCR and antigen tests and then focus mainly on existing antibody tests and their limitations including inaccuracies and possible causes of unreliability. False negatives in antibody immunoassays can arise from assay formats, selection of viral antigens and antibody types, diagnostic testing windows, individual variance, and fluctuation in antibody levels. Reasons for false positives in antibody immunoassays mainly involve antibody cross-reactivity from other viruses, as well as autoimmune disease. The spectrum bias has an effect on both the false negatives and false positives. For assay developers, not only improvement of assay formats but also selection of viral antigens and isotopes of human antibodies need to be carefully considered to improve sensitivity and specificity. For clinicians, the factors influencing the accuracy of assays must be kept in mind to test patients using currently imperfect but available tests with smart tactics and realistic interpretation of the test results.

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

BACKGROUND

Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID-19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS-2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre-prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (50%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (45%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a single RT-PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID-19. Antigen tests Forty-eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self-testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer's instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics ('acceptable' sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self-testing) are required.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Review of Contemporary and Forthcoming Detection Tools

Recent severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) known as COVID-19, presents a deadly challenge to the global healthcare system of developing and developed countries, exposing the limitations of health facilities preparedness for emerging infectious disease pandemic. Opportune detection, confinement, and early treatment of infected cases present the first step in combating COVID-19. In this review, we elaborate on various COVID-19 diagnostic tools that are available or under investigation. Consequently, cell culture, followed by an indirect fluorescent antibody, is one of the most accurate methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, restrictions imposed by the regulatory authorities prevented its general use and implementation. Diagnosis via radiologic imaging and reverse transcriptase PCR assay is frequently employed, considered as standard procedures, whereas isothermal amplification methods are currently on the verge of clinical introduction. Notably, techniques such as CRISPR-Cas and microfluidics have added new dimensions to the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Furthermore, commonly used immunoassays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), neutralization assay, and the chemiluminescent assay can also be used for early detection and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Finally, advancement in the next generation sequencing (NGS) and metagenomic analysis are smoothing the viral detection further in this global challenge.

Considerations for diagnostic COVID-19 tests

During the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, design, development, validation, verification and implementation of diagnostic tests were actively addressed by a large number of diagnostic test manufacturers. Hundreds of molecular tests and immunoassays were rapidly developed, albeit many still await clinical validation and formal approval. In this Review, we summarize the crucial role of diagnostic tests during the first global wave of COVID-19. We explore the technical and implementation problems encountered during this early phase in the pandemic, and try to define future directions for the progressive and better use of (syndromic) diagnostics during a possible resurgence of COVID-19 in future global waves or regional outbreaks. Continuous global improvement in diagnostic test preparedness is essential for more rapid detection of patients, possibly at the point of care, and for optimized prevention and treatment, in both industrialized countries and low-resource settings.

Field evaluation of the performance of a SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test in Uganda using nasopharyngeal samples

OBJECTIVES

There is a high demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing to identify COVID-19 cases. Real-time quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR) is the recommended diagnostic test but a number of constraints prevent its widespread implementation, including cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate a low cost and easy to use rapid antigen test for diagnosing COVID-19 at the point of care.

METHODS

Nasopharyngeal swabs from suspected COVID-19 cases and low-risk volunteers were tested with the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test and the results were compared with the qRT-PCR results.

RESULTS

In total, 262 samples were collected, including 90 qRT-PCR positives. The majority of samples were from males (89%) with a mean age of 34 years and only 13 (14%) of the positives were mildly symptomatic. The sensitivity and specificity of the antigen test were 70.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 60-79) and 92% (95% CI: 87-96), respectively, and the diagnostic accuracy was 84% (95% CI: 79-88). The antigen test was more likely to be positive for samples with qRT-PCR Ct values ≤29, with a sensitivity of 92%.

CONCLUSIONS

The STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test performed less than optimally in this evaluation. However, the test may still have an important role to play early in infection when timely access to molecular testing is not available but the results should be confirmed by qRT-PCR.

Immunochromatography and chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay for COVID-19 diagnosis

Introduction

The rapid and accurate detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is required to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This study evaluated the utility of two SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection methods.

Methods

We evaluated two types of antigen detection methods using immunochromatography (Espline) and quantitative chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (Lumipulse). RT-PCR was performed as a standard procedure for COVID-19 diagnosis. Lumipulse and RT-PCR were performed for all 486 nasopharyngeal swabs and 136 saliva samples, and the Espline test was performed for 271 nasopharyngeal swabs and 93 saliva samples.

Results

The sensitivity and specificity of the Espline test were 10/11 and 260/260 (100%), respectively for the nasopharyngeal swabs and 3/9 and 84/84 (100%), respectively for the saliva samples. High sensitivities for both saliva (8/9) and nasopharyngeal swabs (22/24) were observed in the Lumipulse test. The specificities of the Lumipulse test for nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva samples were 460/462 (99.6%) and 123/127 (96.9%), respectively.

Conclusion

The Espline test is not effective for saliva samples but is useful for simple and rapid COVID-19 tests using nasopharyngeal swabs because it does not require special devices. The Lumipulse test is a powerful high-throughput tool for COVID-19 diagnosis because it has high detection performance for nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva samples.

Validation of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 antigen test in Vojvodina, Serbia

BACKGROUND

Since COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis, tests with high sensitivity and specificity are crucial for the identification and management of COVID-19 patients. There is an urgent need for low-cost rapid antigen COVID-19 test with a good diagnostic performance. Although various antigen rapid detection tests are widely available, strong evidence of their usefulness in clinical practice are still limited. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate clinical performance of STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test (SD Biosensor, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea).

METHODS

The performance of the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen was evaluated in comparison to RT-qPCR results in 120 symptomatic patients (median age 49, IQR 36-70) who presented to health care facility in Novi Sad, Vojvodina, Serbia.

RESULTS

Twenty five out of 120 samples have been tested positive using STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test, and all of them were also positive on RT-qPCR. Overall, the STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test showed sensitivity of 58.1% (95% CI 42.1-73.0) but it was higher in the early days of disease, when the highest viral loads were detected. During the first five days after the symptom onset, the sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 100% and the pooled accuracy and Kappa values were high (0.92 and 0.852).

CONCLUSIONS

A strong agreement between performance of STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag Test and RT-qPCR was observed during the first five days of illness, suggesting that this rapid antigenic test can be very useful for COVID-19 diagnosis in the early phase of disease.

Diagnostic performance of CerTest and Panbio antigen rapid diagnostic tests to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection

Objectives

Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) have been developed as reliable tools to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two Ag-RDTs.

Methods

We evaluated CerTest SARS-CoV-2 Ag One Step Card Test and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device Ag-RDTs. We included 320 nasopharyngeal samples: 150 PCR negative samples to assess the specificity and 170 PCR positive samples to evaluate the sensitivity. We also evaluated their sensitivity according to cycle threshold (Ct) values and the time from the onset of symptoms. Tests were compared using the McNemar’s test and agreement was evaluated using the kappa score (k).

Results

Both Ag-RDTs showed a specificity of 100 %. Overall sensitivity was 53.5 % for CerTest and 60.0 % for Panbio. For samples with Ct≤ 25, sensitivity was 94.0 % for CerTest and 96.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.500). Regarding samples with Ct>25, sensitivity was 14.0 % for CerTest and 24.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.004). Sensitivity for samples within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms were 84.8 % for CerTest and 91.3 % for Panbio (p = 0.250) and notably decreased for samples taken after the fifth day. Both Ag-RDTs showed an excellent agreement between them (agreement = 96.7 %, k = 0.920). Agreement with PCR was also excellent for high viral load samples (Ct<25) for CerTest (98.0 %, k = 0.954) and Panbio (98.8 %, k = 0.973).

Conclusions

CerTest SARS-CoV-2 and Panbio COVID-19 Ag showed excellent performance and agreement results for samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25) or samples taken within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms.

High SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Healthcare Workers in Bukavu, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo

Among 359 healthcare workers (HCW) employed in Panzi General Referral Hospital located in Bukavu in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 148 (41.2%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Thirty-three (22.3%) of the 148 personnel with positive serology reported symptoms evoking a prior COVID-19 illness. None of the infected HCWs reported COVID-related hospitalization, and all of them recovered. Our findings indicate high and underestimated circulation of SARS-CoV-2 within the Bukavu area.

Nanomedicine for COVID-19: the role of nanotechnology in the treatment and diagnosis of COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the recent outbreak of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Although nearly two decades have passed since the emergence of pandemics such as SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), no effective drug against the CoV family has yet been approved, so there is a need to find newer therapeutic targets. Currently, simultaneous research across the globe is being performed to discover efficient vaccines or drugs, including both conventional therapies used to treat previous similar diseases and emerging therapies like nanomedicine. Nanomedicine has already proven its value through its application drug delivery and nanosensors in other diseases. Nanomedicine and its components can play an important role in various stages of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, vaccination, and research related to COVID-19. Nano-based antimicrobial technology can be integrated into personal equipment for the greater safety of healthcare workers and people. Various nanomaterials such as quantum dots can be used as biosensors to diagnose COVID-19. Nanotechnology offers benefits from the use of nanosystems, such as liposomes, polymeric and lipid nanoparticles, metallic nanoparticles, and micelles, for drug encapsulation, and facilitates the improvement of pharmacological drug properties. Antiviral functions for nanoparticles can target the binding, entry, replication, and budding of COVID-19. The toxicity-related inorganic nanoparticles are one of the limiting factors of its use that should be further investigated and modified. In this review, we are going to discuss nanomedicine options for COVID-19 management, similar applications for related viral diseases, and their gap of knowledge.

Antigen tests for COVID-19

PCR diagnosis has been considered as the gold standard for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other many diseases. However, there are many problems in using PCR, such as non-specific (i.e., false-positive) and false-negative amplifications, the limits of a target sample volume, deactivation of the enzymes used, complicated techniques, difficulty in designing probe sequences, and the expense. We, thus, need an alternative to PCR, for example an ultrasensitive antigen test. In the present review, we summarize the following three topics. (1) The problems of PCR are outlined. (2) The antigen tests are surveyed in the literature that was published in 2020, and their pros and cons are discussed for commercially available antigen tests. (3) Our own antigen test on the basis of an ultrasensitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is introduced. Finally, we discuss the possibility that our antigen test by an ultrasensitive ELISA technique will become the gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 and other diseases.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention strategies including pre-endoscopic virus testing and use of high risk personal protective equipment

BACKGROUND

Infection prevention strategies to protect healthcare workers in endoscopy units during the post-peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic are currently under intense discussion. In this paper, the cost-effectiveness of routine pre-endoscopy testing and high risk personal protective equipment (PPE) is addressed.

METHOD

A model based on theoretical assumptions of 10 000 asymptomatic patients presenting to a high volume center was created. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and absolute costs per endoscopy were calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

ICER values for universal testing decreased with increasing prevalence rates. For higher prevalence rates (≥ 1 %), ICER values were lowest for routine pre-endoscopy testing coupled with use of high risk PPE, while cost per endoscopy was lowest for routine use of high risk PPE without universal testing.

CONCLUSION

In general, routine pre-endoscopy testing combined with high risk PPE becomes more cost-effective with rising prevalence rates of COVID-19.

Laboratory testing for the diagnosis of COVID-19

Rapid and accurate laboratory diagnosis of active COVID-19 infection is one of the cornerstones of pandemic control. With the myriad of tests available in the market, the use of correct specimen type and laboratory-testing technique in the right clinical scenario could be challenging for non-specialists. In this mini-review, we will discuss the difference in diagnostic performance for different upper and lower respiratory tract specimens, and the role of blood and fecal specimens. We will analyze the performance characteristics of laboratory testing techniques of nucleic acid amplification tests, antigen detection tests, antibody detection tests, and point-of-care tests. Finally, the dynamics of viral replication and antibody production, and laboratory results interpretation in conjunction with clinical scenarios will be discussed.

COVID-19: A Review on the Novel Coronavirus Disease Evolution, Transmission, Detection, Control and Prevention

Three major outbreaks of the coronavirus, a zoonotic virus known to cause respiratory disease, have been reported since 2002, including SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and the most recent 2019-nCoV, or more recently known as SARS-CoV-2. Bats are known to be the primary animal reservoir for coronaviruses. However, in the past few decades, the virus has been able to mutate and adapt to infect humans, resulting in an animal-to-human species barrier jump. The emergence of a novel coronavirus poses a serious global public health threat and possibly carries the potential of causing a major pandemic outbreak in the naïve human population. The recent outbreak of COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China has infected over 36.5 million individuals and claimed over one million lives worldwide, as of 8 October 2020. The novel virus is rapidly spreading across China and has been transmitted to 213 other countries/territories across the globe. Researchers have reported that the virus is constantly evolving and spreading through asymptomatic carriers, further suggesting a high global health threat. To this end, current up-to-date information on the coronavirus evolution and SARS-CoV-2 modes of transmission, detection techniques and current control and prevention strategies are summarized in this review.

COVID-19: A Review on the Novel Coronavirus Disease Evolution, Transmission, Detection, Control and Prevention

Three major outbreaks of the coronavirus, a zoonotic virus known to cause respiratory disease, have been reported since 2002, including SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and the most recent 2019-nCoV, or more recently known as SARS-CoV-2. Bats are known to be the primary animal reservoir for coronaviruses. However, in the past few decades, the virus has been able to mutate and adapt to infect humans, resulting in an animal-to-human species barrier jump. The emergence of a novel coronavirus poses a serious global public health threat and possibly carries the potential of causing a major pandemic outbreak in the naïve human population. The recent outbreak of COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China has infected over 36.5 million individuals and claimed over one million lives worldwide, as of 8 October 2020. The novel virus is rapidly spreading across China and has been transmitted to 213 other countries/territories across the globe. Researchers have reported that the virus is constantly evolving and spreading through asymptomatic carriers, further suggesting a high global health threat. To this end, current up-to-date information on the coronavirus evolution and SARS-CoV-2 modes of transmission, detection techniques and current control and prevention strategies are summarized in this review.

Evaluation of two fluorescence immunoassays for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-new tool to detect infective COVID-19 patients

Background

Real-Time Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is currently the only recommended diagnostic method for SARS-CoV-2. However, rapid immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 antigen could significantly reduce the COVID-19 burden currently weighing on laboratories around the world.

Methods

We evaluated the performance of two rapid fluorescence immunoassays (FIAs), SOFIA SARS Antigen FIA (Quidel Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA) and STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (SD Biosensor Inc., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea), which use an automated reader. The study used 64 RT-PCR characterized clinical samples (32 positive; 32 negative), which consisted of nasopharyngeal swabs in universal transport medium.

Results

Of the 32 positive specimens, all from patients within 5 days of symptom onset, the Quidel and SD Biosensor assays detected 30 (93.8%) and 29 (90.6%) samples, respectively. Among the 27 samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25), the two tests had a sensitivity of 100%. Specificity was 96.9% for both kits.

Conclusion

The high performance of the evaluated FIAs indicates a potential use as rapid and PCR-independent tools for COVID-19 diagnosis in early stages of infection. The excellent sensitivity to detect cases with viral loads above ~10⁶ copies/mL (Ct values ≤ 25), the estimated threshold of contagiousness, suggests that the assays might serve to rapidly identify infective individuals.

The Comparative Clinical Performance of Four SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests and Their Correlation to Infectivity In Vitro

Due to globally rising numbers of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, resources for real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR)-based testing have been exhausted. In order to meet the demands of testing and reduce transmission, SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are being considered. These tests are fast, inexpensive, and simple to use, but whether they detect potentially infectious cases has not been well studied. We evaluated three lateral flow assays (RIDA®QUICK SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (R-Biopharm), SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche)), and NADAL® COVID-19 Ag Test (Nal von Minden GmbH, Regensburg, Germany) and one microfluidic immunofluorescence assay (SARS-CoV-2 Ag Test (LumiraDx GmbH, Cologne, Germany)) using 100 clinical samples. Diagnostic rRT-PCR and cell culture testing as a marker for infectivity were performed in parallel. The overall Ag-RDT sensitivity for rRT-PCR-positive samples ranged from 24.3% to 50%. However, for samples with a viral load of more than 6 log10 RNA copies/mL (22/100), typically seen in infectious individuals, Ag-RDT positivity was between 81.8% and 100%. Only 51.6% (33/64) of the rRT-PCR-positive samples were infectious in cell culture. In contrast, three Ag-RDTs demonstrated a more significant correlation with cell culture infectivity (61.8-82.4%). Our findings suggest that large-scale SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT-based testing can be considered for detecting potentially infective individuals and reducing the virus spread.

Architectured Therapeutic and Diagnostic Nanoplatforms for Combating SARS-CoV-2: Role of Inorganic, Organic, and Radioactive Materials

Although extensive research is being done to combat SARS-CoV-2, we are yet far away from a robust conclusion or strategy. With an increased amount of vaccine research, nanotechnology has found its way into vaccine technology. Researchers have explored the use of various nanostructures for delivering the vaccines for enhanced efficacy. Apart from acting as delivery platforms, multiple studies have shown the application of inorganic nanoparticles in suppressing the growth as well as transmission of the virus. The present review gives a detailed description of various inorganic nanomaterials which are being explored for combating SARS-CoV-2 along with their role in suppressing the transmission of the virus either through air or by contact with inanimate surfaces. The review further discusses the use of nanoparticles for development of an antiviral coating that may decrease adhesion of SARS-CoV-2. A separate section has been included describing the role of nanostructures in biosensing and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The role of nanotechnology in providing an alternative therapeutic platform along with the role of radionuclides in SARS-CoV-2 has been described briefly. Based on ongoing research and commercialization of this nanoplatform for a viral disease, the nanomaterials show the potential in therapy, biosensing, and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

Current advances in the detection of COVID-19 and evaluation of the humoral response

The new outbreak caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 started at the end of 2019 and was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Since then, several diagnostic approaches have been re-adapted, and also improved from the previous detections of SARS and MERS coronavirus. The best strategy to handle this situation seems to rely on a triad of detection methods: (i) highly sensitive and specific techniques as the gold standard method, (ii) easier and faster point of care tests accessible for large population screening, and (iii) serology assays to complement the direct detection and to use for surveillance. In this study, we assessed the techniques and tests described in the literature, their advantages and disadvantages, and the interpretation of the results. Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is undoubtedly the gold standard technique utilized not only for diagnostics, but also as a standard for comparison and validation of newer approaches. Other nucleic acid amplification methods have been shown to be adequate as point of care (POC) diagnostic tests with similar performance as RT-qPCR. The analysis of seroconversion with immunotests shows the complexity of the immune response to COVID-19. The detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can also help to detect previously infected asymptomatic individuals with negative RT-qPCR tests. Nevertheless, more controlled serology cohort studies should be performed as soon as possible to understand the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a review of molecular diagnostic tools including sample collection and commercial response with associated advantages and limitations

The unprecedented global pandemic known as SARS-CoV-2 has exercised to its limits nearly all aspects of modern viral diagnostics. In doing so, it has illuminated both the advantages and limitations of current technologies. Tremendous effort has been put forth to expand our capacity to diagnose this deadly virus. In this work, we put forth key observations in the functionality of current methods for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing. These methods include nucleic acid amplification-, CRISPR-, sequencing-, antigen-, and antibody-based detection methods. Additionally, we include analysis of equally critical aspects of COVID-19 diagnostics, including sample collection and preparation, testing models, and commercial response. We emphasize the integrated nature of assays, wherein issues in sample collection and preparation could impact the overall performance in a clinical setting.

Detection technologies and recent developments in the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection

COVID-19 is a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 capable of causing mild to severe infections in humans. Since its first appearance in China in December 2019, the pandemic has spread rapidly throughout the world. Despite considerable efforts made to contain the disease, the virus has continued its prevalence in many countries with varying degrees of clinical manifestations. To contain this pandemic, collaborative approach involving accurate diagnosis, epidemiology, surveillance, and prophylaxis is essential. However, proper diagnosis using rapid technologies plays a crucial role. With increasing incidence of COVID-19 cases, the accurate and early detection of the SARS-CoV-2 is need of the hour for effective prevention and management of COVID-19 cases as well as to curb its spread. RT-qPCR assay is considered to be the gold standard for the early detection of virus, but this protocol has limited application to use as bedside test because of its technical complexity. To address these challenges, several POC assays have been developed to facilitate the COVID-19 diagnosis outside the centralized testing laboratories as well to accelerate the clinical decision making with a least turnaround time. Hence, in this report, we review different nucleic acid-based and serological techniques available for the diagnosis and effective prevention of COVID-19. KEY POINTS : • Provides comprehensive information on the different diagnostic tools available for COVID-19 • Nucleic acid based tests or antigen detection tests are used for diagnostic purpose • Accurate diagnosis is essential for the efficient management of COVID-19.

Clinical pathology resident education during the COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 arrived at our medical centre in March 2020 with substantial force. Clinical pathology concepts began to have a new, direct relevance to our residents' lives. As we wondered 'Have I been exposed? Do I need to self-isolate? Are the tests reliable? Am I protecting myself adequately while handling specimens?', these questions drew new interest in laboratory methods, test interpretation and limitations, supply chain issues, safety and quality. By incorporating SARS-CoV-2 teaching points into laboratory medicine lectures, we enlivened concepts of sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and methodologic issues in serologic, molecular and antigen testing for pathology residents. We drew from the emerging literature on SARS-CoV-2 to create lectures and added details from our own institutional experience with COVID-19. When the pandemic fades from memory, clinical pathology education can still benefit from mnemonics, analogies, anecdotes and creative efforts that capture the attention of the audience.

Comparison of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19

Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR)-based tests are widely used to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As a result that these tests cannot be done in local clinics where RT-qPCR testing capability is lacking, rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19 based on lateral flow immunoassays are used for rapid diagnosis. However, their sensitivity compared with each other and with RT-qPCR and infectious virus isolation has not been examined. Here, we compared the sensitivity among four RATs by using severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) isolates and several types of COVID-19 patient specimens and compared their sensitivity with that of RT-qPCR and infectious virus isolation. Although the RATs read the samples containing large amounts of virus as positive, even the most sensitive RAT read the samples containing small amounts of virus as negative. Moreover, all RATs tested failed to detect viral antigens in several specimens from which the virus was isolated. The current RATs will likely miss some COVID-19 patients who are shedding infectious SARS-CoV-2.

Clinical validation of quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays to estimate SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in nasopharyngeal swabs

BACKGROUND

Expansion of the testing capacity for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an important issue to mitigate the pandemic of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) caused by this virus. Recently, a sensitive quantitative antigen test (SQT), Lumipulse® SARS-CoV-2 Ag, was developed. It is a fully automated chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay system for SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

In this study, the analytical performance of SQT was examined using clinical specimens from nasopharyngeal swabs using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as a control.

RESULTS

Receiver operating characteristic analysis of 24 SARS-CoV-2-positive and 524 -negative patients showed an area under the curve of 0.957 ± 0.063. Using a cut-off value of 1.34 pg/ml, the sensitivity was 91.7%, the specificity was 98.5%, and the overall rate of agreement was 98.2%. In the distribution of negative cases, the 99.5 percentile value was 1.03 pg/ml. There was a high correlation between the viral load calculated using the cycle threshold value of RT-PCR and the concentration of antigen. The tendency for the antigen concentration to decrease with time after disease onset correlated with that of the viral load.

CONCLUSIONS

Presented results indicate that SQT is highly concordant with RT-PCR and should be useful for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in any clinical setting. Therefore, this fully automated kit will contribute to the expansion of the testing capability for SARS-CoV-2.

The Virological, Immunological, and Imaging Approaches for COVID-19 Diagnosis and Research

In 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was found to cause a highly contagious disease characterized by pneumonia. The disease (COVID-19) quickly spread around the globe, escalating to a global pandemic. In this review, we discuss the virological, immunological, and imaging approaches harnessed for COVID-19 diagnosis and research. COVID-19 shares many clinical characteristics with other respiratory illnesses.Accurate and early detection of the infection is pivotal to controlling the outbreak, as this enables case identification, isolation, and contact tracing. We summarize the available literature on current laboratory and point-of-care diagnostics, highlight their strengths and limitations, and describe the emerging diagnostic approaches on the horizon.We also discuss the various research techniques that are being used to evaluate host immunity in laboratory-confirmed patients. Additionally, pathological imaging of tissue samples from affected patients has a critical role in guiding investigations on this disease. Conventional techniques, such as immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence, have been frequently used to characterize the immune microenvironment in COVID-19. We also outline the emerging imaging techniques, such as the RNAscope, which might also aid in our understanding of the significance of COVID-19-specific biomarkers, such as the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) cellular receptor.Overall, great progress has been made in COVID-19 research in a short period. Extensive, global collation of our current knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 will provide insights into novel treatment modalities, such as monoclonal antibodies, and support the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Evidence-based point-of-care technology development during the COVID-19 pandemic

Since December 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak that began in Wuhan, China has spread to nearly every continent and become a global health concern. Although much has been discovered about COVID-19 and its pathogenesis, the WHO has identified an immediate need to increase the levels of testing for COVID-19 and identify the stages of the disease accurately for appropriate action to be taken by clinicians and emergency care units. Harnessing technology for accurate diagnosis and staging will improve patient outcomes and minimize serious consequences of false-positive test results. Point-of-care technologies aim to intervene at every stage of the disease to quickly identify infected patients and asymptomatic carriers and stratify them for timely treatment. This requires the tests to be rapid, accurate, sensitive, simple to use and compatible with many body fluids. Mobile platforms are optimal for remote, small-scale deployment, whereas facility-based platforms at hospital centers and laboratory settings offer higher throughput. Here we review evidence-based point-of-care technologies in the context of the entire continuum of COVID-19, from early screening to treatment, and discuss their impact on improving patient outcomes.

Diagnosis of COVID-19: facts and challenges

At the end of 2019, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, then spread rapidly across the country and throughout the world. The causative agent is severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); according to the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, this virus has a nucleic acid sequence that is different from other known coronaviruses but has some similarity to the beta coronavirus identified in bats. Coronaviruses are a large virus group of enveloped positive-sense single-stranded RNA. They are divided into four genera-alpha, beta, delta and gamma-and alpha and beta coronaviruses are known to infect humans. Rapid and early diagnosis of COVID-19 is a challenging issue for physicians and other healthcare personnel. The sensitivity and specificity of the clinical, radiologic and laboratory tests used to diagnose COVID-19 are variable and largely differ in efficacy depending on the disease's stage of presentation.

Implementing COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Rapid Diagnostic Tests in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review

Introduction: For the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) response, COVID-19 antigen (Ag), and antibody (Ab) rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are expected to complement central molecular testing particularly in low-resource settings. The present review assesses requirements for implementation of COVID-19 RDTs in sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: Review of PubMed-published articles assessing COVID-19 RDTs complemented with Instructions for Use (IFU) of products. Results: In total 47 articles on two COVID-19 Ag RDTs and 54 COVID-19 Ab RDTs and IFUs of 20 COVID-19 Ab RDTs were retrieved. Only five COVID-19 Ab RDTs (9.3%) were assessed with capillary blood sampling at the point-of-care; none of the studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Sampling: Challenges for COVID-19 Ag RDTs include nasopharyngeal sampling (technique, biosafety) and sample stability; for COVID-19 Ab RDTs equivalence of whole blood vs. plasma/serum needs further validation (assessed for only eight (14.8%) products). Sensitivity-Specificity: sensitivity of COVID-19 Ag and Ab RDTs depend on viral load (antigen) and timeframe (antibody), respectively; COVID-19 Ab tests have lower sensitivity compared to laboratory test platforms and the kinetics of IgM and IgG are very similar. Reported specificity was high but has not yet been assessed against tropical pathogens. Kit configuration: For COVID-19 Ag RDTs, flocked swabs should be added to the kit; for COVID-19 Ab RDTs, finger prick sampling materials, transfer devices, and controls should be added (currently only supplied in 15, 5, and 1/20 products). Usability and Robustness: some COVID-19 Ab RDTs showed high proportions of faint lines (>40%) or invalid results (>20%). Shortcomings were reported for buffer vials (spills, air bubbles) and their instructions for use. Stability: storage temperature was ≤ 30°C for all but one RDT, in-use and result stability were maximal at 1 h and 30 min, respectively. Integration in the healthcare setting requires a target product profile, landscape overview of technologies, certified manufacturing capacity, a sustainable market, and a stringent but timely regulation. In-country deployment depends on integration in the national laboratory network. Discussion/Conclusion: Despite these limitations, successful implementation models in triage, contact tracing, and surveillance have been proposed, in particular for COVID-19 Ab RDTs. Valuable experience is available from implementation of other disease-specific RDTs in sub-Saharan Africa.

Analytical sensitivity and clinical sensitivity of the three rapid antigen detection kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus

•

We compared the three commercially available rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

•

The three RAD kits varied from 10²–10⁵ fold less sensitive than RT-PCR.

•

Clinical sensitivity of RAD kits ranged from 22.9 %–71.4 % for detecting respiratory specimens from COVID-19 patients.

•

Understanding the clinical characteristics of different RAD kits can increase the likelihood of positive results.

Background

Numerous rapid antigen detection (RAD) kits for diagnosing COVID-19 patients are available in the market recently.

Objective

To compare analytical sensitivity and clinical sensitivity for the three commercially available RAD kits.

Study Design

Analytical sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus was determined by limit of detection (LOD) using RT-PCR as a reference method. Clinical sensitivity was evaluated by using respiratory specimens collected from confirmed COVID-19 patients.

Results

The LOD results showed that the three RAD kits varied from 10²–10⁵ fold less sensitive than RT-PCR. Clinical sensitivity of RAD kits ranged from 22.9 %–71.4 % for detecting specimens from COVID-19 patients.

Conclusions

Although RAD kits were less sensitive than RT-PCR, understanding the clinical characteristics of different RAD kits can guide us to obtain suitable specimens for testing. The likelihood of positive results for RAD kits will be higher.

Guidelines for Preoperative Testing for Neurosurgery in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Era: Indian Viewpoint Amidst Global Practice

Preoperative testing and evaluation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been an enigmatic challenge for the neurosurgical community during the pandemic. Since the beginning of the pandemic, laboratory diagnostic methods have evolved substantially, and with them has been the necessity for readily available, fast, and accurate preoperative testing methods. In this article, we provide an overview of the various laboratory testing methods that are presently available and a comprehensive literature review how various institutes and neurosurgical communities across the globe are employing them to ensure safe and effective delivery of surgical care to patients. Through this review, we highlight the guiding principles for preoperative testing, which may serve as a road map for other medical institutions to follow. In addition, we provide an Indian perspective of preoperative testing and share our experience in this regard.

DFC, Medina E, Sinche F, Santiago Vispo N, Dahoumane SA, Alexis F. Biomedical Science to Tackle the COVID-19 Pandemic: Current Status and Future Perspectives

The coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) pandemic emerged at the end of 2019, and was caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which has resulted in an unprecedented health and economic crisis worldwide. One key aspect, compared to other recent pandemics, is the level of urgency, which has started a race for finding adequate answers. Solutions for efficient prevention approaches, rapid, reliable, and high throughput diagnostics, monitoring, and safe therapies are needed. Research across the world has been directed to fight against COVID-19. Biomedical science has been presented as a possible area for combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus due to the unique challenges raised by the pandemic, as reported by epidemiologists, immunologists, and medical doctors, including COVID-19's survival, symptoms, protein surface composition, and infection mechanisms. While the current knowledge about the SARS-CoV-2 virus is still limited, various (old and new) biomedical approaches have been developed and tested. Here, we review the current status and future perspectives of biomedical science in the context of COVID-19, including nanotechnology, prevention through vaccine engineering, diagnostic, monitoring, and therapy. This review is aimed at discussing the current impact of biomedical science in healthcare for the management of COVID-19, as well as some challenges to be addressed.

Clinically practiced and commercially viable nanobio engineered analytical methods for COVID-19 diagnosis

The recent outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has left the world clueless. As the WHO declares this new contagion as a pandemic on the 11th of March 2020, the alarming rate of the spawn of the disease in such a short period has disarranged the globe. Standing against this situation researchers are strenuously searching for the key traits responsible for this pandemic. As knowledge regarding the dynamics and host-path interaction of COVID-19 causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is currently unknown, the formulation of strategies concerning antiviral treatment, vaccination, and epidemiological control stands crucial. Before designing adequate therapeutic strategies, it is extremely essential to diagnose the disease at the outset as early detection can have a greater impact on building health system capacity. Hence, a comprehensive review of strategies for COVID-19 diagnosis is essential in this existing global situation. In this review, sequentially, we have provided the clinical details along with genetic and proteomic biomarkers related to COVID-19. The article systematically enlightens a clear overview of the clinically adopted techniques for the detection of COVID-19 including oligonucleotide-based molecular detection, Point-of-Care immunodiagnostics, radiographical analysis/sensing system, and newly developed biosensing prototypes having commercial viability. The commercial kits/analytical methods based-sensing strategies have also been tabulated categorically. The critical insights on the developer, commercial brand name, detection methods, technical operational details, detection time, clinical specimen, status, the limit of detection/detection ability have been discussed comprehensively. We believe that this review may provide scientists, clinicians and healthcare manufacturers valuable information regarding the most recent developments/approaches towards COVID-19 diagnosis.

Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a nationwide observational study of 8075 participants

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been largely used and investigated as therapy for COVID-19 across various settings at a total dose usually ranging from 2400 mg to 9600 mg. In Belgium, off-label use of low-dose HCQ (total 2400 mg over 5 days) was recommended for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective analysis of in-hospital mortality in the Belgian national COVID-19 hospital surveillance data. Patients treated either with HCQ monotherapy and supportive care (HCQ group) were compared with patients treated with supportive care only (no-HCQ group) using a competing risks proportional hazards regression with discharge alive as competing risk, adjusted for demographic and clinical features with robust standard errors. Of 8075 patients with complete discharge data on 24 May 2020 and diagnosed before 1 May 2020, 4542 received HCQ in monotherapy and 3533 were in the no-HCQ group. Death was reported in 804/4542 (17.7%) and 957/3533 (27.1%), respectively. In the multivariable analysis, mortality was lower in the HCQ group compared with the no-HCQ group [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.684, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.617-0.758]. Compared with the no-HCQ group, mortality in the HCQ group was reduced both in patients diagnosed ≤5 days (n = 3975) and >5 days (n = 3487) after symptom onset [aHR = 0.701 (95% CI 0.617-0.796) and aHR = 0.647 (95% CI 0.525-0.797), respectively]. Compared with supportive care only, low-dose HCQ monotherapy was independently associated with lower mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 diagnosed and treated early or later after symptom onset.

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

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection.

SEARCH METHODS

On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline.

Implementation of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigenic testing in a laboratory without access to molecular methods: Experiences of a general hospital

•

The COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip assay is a new immunochromatographic diagnostic tool for antigenic diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

•

This test did not reduce significantly the number of samples outsourced for COVID-19 confirmation.

•

The sensitivity of this rapid test is poor and improvements are needed to enhance its performances.

Background

The COVID-19 Ag (Antigen) Respi-Strip assay is a new immunochromatographic diagnostic tool recently available for antigenic diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The proposed sensitivity is not higher than 60 %, but its high specificity allows both quick decisions for the management of patients and confirmation by molecular diagnosis for only negative tests. However, from the first tests performed, we suspected that the sensitivity observed with routine use was much lower than that announced by the manufacturer.

Materials and methods

Over a period of one month, we compared the negative results obtained with the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip kit with those obtained from qRT-PCR performed in a laboratory qualified for the molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. All samples tested were naso-pharyngeal smears from UTM-RT medium.

Results

Of 774 patients tested, 714 negative samples were sent for confirmation, and 159 were found to be positive by qRT-PCR. The median positive percentage agreement was 23.9 % (95 % CI: 14.2 %–38.2 %). The Cohen’s kappa score was 0.35.

Conclusion

Using this immunochromatographic assay as a triage test did not significantly reduce the number of samples outsourced for COVID-19 confirmation by qRT-PCR. In addition, even if the turn-around time is short, the assay is completely manual, which is not suitable for large volumes of routine samples. The sensitivity of this rapid test is poor, and improvements are needed to enhance its performance.