Evaluation of a quantitative RT-PCR assay for the detection of the emerging coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 using a high throughput system

Implementation and evaluation of a novel real-time multiplex assay for SARS-CoV-2: in-field learnings from a clinical microbiology laboratory

The unprecedented scale of testing required to effectively control the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated urgent implementation of rapid testing in clinical microbiology laboratories. To date, there are limited data available on the analytical performance of emerging commercially available assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and integration of these assays into laboratory workflows. Here, we performed a prospective validation study of a commercially available assay, the AusDiagnostics Coronavirus Typing (8-well) assay. Respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing were collected between 1 March and 25 March 2020. All positive samples and a random subset of negative samples were sent to a reference laboratory for confirmation. In total, 2673 samples were analysed using the Coronavirus Typing assay. The predominant sample type was a combined nasopharyngeal/throat swab (2640/2673; 98.8%). Fifty-four patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (2.0%) using the Coronavirus Typing assay; 53/54 (98.1%) positive results and 621/621 (100%) negative results were concordant with the reference laboratory. Compared to the reference laboratory gold standard, sensitivity of the Coronavirus Typing assay for SARS-CoV-2 was 100% (95% CI 93.2–100%), specificity 99.8% (95% CI 99.1–100%), positive predictive value 98.1% (95% CI 90.2–99.7%) and negative predictive value 100% (95% CI 99.4–100%). In many countries, standard regulatory requirements for the introduction of new assays have been replaced by emergency authorisations and it is critical that laboratories share their post-market validation experiences, as the consequences of widespread introduction of a suboptimal assay for SARS-CoV-2 are profound. Here, we share our in-field experience, and encourage other laboratories to follow suit.

Pulmonary Arterial Thrombosis in COVID-19 With Fatal Outcome : Results From a Prospective, Single-Center, Clinicopathologic Case Series

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly become pandemic, with substantial mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the pathologic changes of organ systems and the clinicopathologic basis for severe and fatal outcomes.

DESIGN

Prospective autopsy study.

SETTING

Single pathology department.

PARTICIPANTS

11 deceased patients with COVID-19 (10 of whom were selected at random for autopsy).

MEASUREMENTS

Systematic macroscopic, histopathologic, and viral analysis (SARS-CoV-2 on real-time polymerase chain reaction assay), with correlation of pathologic and clinical features, including comorbidities, comedication, and laboratory values.

RESULTS

Patients' age ranged from 66 to 91 years (mean, 80.5 years; 8 men, 3 women). Ten of the 11 patients received prophylactic anticoagulant therapy; venous thromboembolism was not clinically suspected antemortem in any of the patients. Both lungs showed various stages of diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), including edema, hyaline membranes, and proliferation of pneumocytes and fibroblasts. Thrombosis of small and mid-sized pulmonary arteries was found in various degrees in all 11 patients and was associated with infarction in 8 patients and bronchopneumonia in 6 patients. Kupffer cell proliferation was seen in all patients, and chronic hepatic congestion in 8 patients. Other changes in the liver included hepatic steatosis, portal fibrosis, lymphocytic infiltrates and ductular proliferation, lobular cholestasis, and acute liver cell necrosis, together with central vein thrombosis. Additional frequent findings included renal proximal tubular injury, focal pancreatitis, adrenocortical hyperplasia, and lymphocyte depletion of spleen and lymph nodes. Viral RNA was detectable in pharyngeal, bronchial, and colonic mucosa but not bile.

LIMITATION

The sample was small.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 predominantly involves the lungs, causing DAD and leading to acute respiratory insufficiency. Death may be caused by the thrombosis observed in segmental and subsegmental pulmonary arterial vessels despite the use of prophylactic anticoagulation. Studies are needed to further understand the thrombotic complications of COVID-19, together with the roles for strict thrombosis prophylaxis, laboratory and imaging studies, and early anticoagulant therapy for suspected pulmonary arterial thrombosis or thromboembolism.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

COVID-19: Diagnostic Testing and Challenges

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. Following this, there has been a rapid development in policies and strategies to contain and mitigate the pandemic. One of such strategies involves the development and utilization of testing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative organism of COVID-19. In this article, we explore the diagnostic modalities for COVID-19 based on the available information to date.

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.

Six decades of lateral flow immunoassay: from determining metabolic markers to diagnosing COVID-19

Technologies based on lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), known in some countries of the world as immunochromatographic tests, have been successfully used for the last six decades in diagnostics of many diseases and conditions as they allow rapid detection of molecular ligands in biosubstrates. The popularity of these diagnostic platforms is constantly increasing in healthcare facilities, particularly those facing limited budgets and time, as well as in household use for individual health monitoring. The advantages of these low-cost devices over modern laboratory-based analyzers come from their availability, opportunity of rapid detection, and ease of use. The attractiveness of these portable diagnostic tools is associated primarily with their high analytical sensitivity and specificity, as well as with the easy visual readout of results. These qualities explain the growing popularity of LFIA in developing countries, when applied at small hospitals, in emergency situations where screening and monitoring health condition is crucially important, and as well as for self-testing of patients. These tools have passed the test of time, and now LFIA test systems are fully consistent with the world's modern concept of ‘point-of-care testing’, finding a wide range of applications not only in human medicine, but also in ecology, veterinary medicine, and agriculture. The extensive opportunities provided by LFIA contribute to the continuous development and improvement of this technology and to the creation of new-generation formats. This review will highlight the modern principles of design of the most widely used formats of test-systems for clinical laboratory diagnostics, summarize the main advantages and disadvantages of the method, as well as the current achievements and prospects of the LFIA technology. The latest innovations are aimed at improving the analytical performance of LFIA platforms for the diagnosis of bacterial and viral infections, including COVID-19.

Clinical Evaluation of Self-Collected Saliva by Quantitative Reverse Transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR), Direct RT-qPCR, Reverse Transcription-Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification, and a Rapid Antigen Test To Diagnose COVID-19

The clinical performances of six molecular diagnostic tests and a rapid antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were clinically evaluated for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in self-collected saliva. Saliva samples from 103 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (15 asymptomatic and 88 symptomatic) were collected on the day of hospital admission. SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva was detected using a quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR) laboratory-developed test (LDT), a cobas SARS-CoV-2 high-throughput system, three direct RT-qPCR kits, and reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). The viral antigen was detected by a rapid antigen immunochromatographic assay. Of the 103 samples, viral RNA was detected in 50.5 to 81.6% of the specimens by molecular diagnostic tests, and an antigen was detected in 11.7% of the specimens by the rapid antigen test. Viral RNA was detected at significantly higher percentages (65.6 to 93.4%) in specimens collected within 9 days of symptom onset than in specimens collected after at least 10 days of symptoms (22.2 to 66.7%) and in specimens collected from asymptomatic patients (40.0 to 66.7%). Self-collected saliva is an alternative specimen option for diagnosing COVID-19. The RT-qPCR LDT, a cobas SARS-CoV-2 high-throughput system, direct RT-qPCR kits (except for one commercial kit), and RT-LAMP showed sufficient sensitivities in clinical use to be selectively used in clinical settings and facilities. The rapid antigen test alone is not recommended for an initial COVID-19 diagnosis because of its low sensitivity.

Nucleic Acid Testing for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Demand, Research Progression, and Perspective

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a public health emergency of international concern. There has been a surge in demand for COVID-19 diagnostic reagents, as timely detection of virus carriers is one of the most important components of disease prevention and control. Nucleic acid testing (NAT), with high sensitivity and specificity, is considered the "gold standard" for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Therefore, more than 700 research units and companies have been devoted to developing NAT reagents. To date, nearly 600 research units and companies have claimed to have completed the development of NAT reagents. The use of these products has a positive effect on disease prevention and control; however, exaggerated claims and inadequate understanding of the products have led to improper access to reagents and equipment in clinics. This has resulted in chaos in the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Herein, we have overviewed the COVID-19 NAT products, including their principles, corresponding advantages and disadvantages, relevant circumstances for application, and respective roles in epidemic containment. Our comments may provide some references for assay developers and aid clinical staff in choosing the appropriate class of test from the different tests available.

Evaluation of Four Commercial Kits for SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Approved by Emergency-Use-Authorization in Korea

SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) is the most effective testing system currently available to counter COVID-19 epidemics when potent treatments and vaccines are unavailable. Therefore, four SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR kits have been approved by the emergency-use-authorization (EUA) without clinical validation in Korea until March 15, 2020. This study evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of these kits. Allplex 2019-nCoV Real-time PCR (Seegene, Seoul, Korea), PowerChek 2019-nCoV (KogeneBiotech, Seoul), Real-Q 2019-nCoV Real-Time Detection (BioSewoom, Seoul), and StandardM nCoV Detection (SD BIOSENSOR, Osong, Korea) were evaluated. The limit of detection (LODs) of Allplex, PowerChek, and Real-Q was determined by testing the transcribed RNA of SARS-CoV-2 E and the RNA of SARS-CoV Frankfurt1. A total of 27 consecutive samples comprising 13 sputum, 12 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), 1 urine and 1 stool sample were collected from 2 COVID-19 patients for sensitivity analysis. Precision was assessed via daily tests of positive and negative controls in each kit for 5 d. Reproducibility was examined by repeating 21 samples and 10-fold dilutions of 14 samples in pairs using Allplex. Specificity was evaluated with 24 other respiratory virus-positive samples. LOD of Allplex, PowerChek, and Real-Q were 153.9, 84.1, and 80.6 copies/mL, respectively. The degrees of association between Cts and log viral concentrations by Allplex and PowerChek was expressed as y = −3.319 log (x) + 42.039 (R = 0.96) and y = −3.392 log(x) + 43.113 (R = 0.98), respectively. One or more of the 4 kits detected 20 out of 27 clinical samples positive. Of the 20 positive samples, the detection rates of positives for Allplex, PowerChek, Real-Q, and StandardM were 90.0, 82.3, 75.0, and 100.0%, respectively, but those of PowerChek and Real-Q would be 100% if out-of-cutoff Cts were counted as positives. Precision was 100%. Interpretation of Allplex results was reproducible when Ct of E ≤33. All 4 kits showed no cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses. Performance of the 4 kits indicated the suitability of these for diagnosis and follow-up testing of COVID-19. Laboratory doctors who initially implement these EUA kits must be able to interpret quality control parameters.

Molecular and Serological Assays for SARS-CoV-2: Insights from Genome and Clinical Characteristics

Background

The ongoing outbreak of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has posed a challenge for worldwide public health. A reliable laboratory assay is essential both to confirm suspected patients and to exclude patients infected with other respiratory viruses, thereby facilitating the control of global outbreak scenarios.

Content

In this review, we focus on the genomic, transmission and clinical characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, and comprehensively summarize the principles and related details of assays for SARS-CoV-2. We also explore the quality assurance measures for these assays.

Summary

SARS-CoV-2 has some unique gene sequences and specific transmission and clinical features that can inform the conduct of molecular and serological assays in many aspects, including the design of primers, the selection of specimens and testing strategies at different disease stages. Appropriate quality assurance measures for molecular and serological assays are needed to maintain testing proficiency. Because serological assays have the potential to identify later stages of the infection and to confirm highly suspected cases with negative molecular assay results, a combination of these two assays is needed to achieve a reliable capacity to detect SARS-CoV-2.

Targeting Endothelial Dysfunction in Eight Extreme-Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 Using the Anti-Adrenomedullin Antibody Adrecizumab (HAM8101)

Recently, the stabilization of the endothelium has been explicitly identified as a therapeutic goal in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Adrecizumab (HAM8101) is a first-in-class humanized monoclonal anti-Adrenomedullin (anti-ADM) antibody, targeting the sepsis- and inflammation-based vascular and capillary leakage. Within a "treatment on a named-patient basis" approach, Adrecizumab was administered to eight extreme-critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patients received a single dose of Adrecizumab, which was administered between 1 and 3 days after the initiation of mechanical ventilation. The SOFA (median 12.5) and SAPS-II (median 39) scores clearly documented the population at highest risk. Moreover, six of the patients suffered from acute renal failure, of whom five needed renal replacement therapy. The length of follow-up ranged between 13 and 27 days. Following the Adrecizumab administration, one patient in the low-dose group died at day 4 due to fulminant pulmonary embolism, while four were in stable condition, and three were discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU). Within 12 days, the SOFA score, as well as the disease severity score (range 0-16, mirroring critical resources in the ICU, with higher scores indicating more severe illness), decreased in five out of the seven surviving patients (in all high-dose patients). The PaO2/FiO2 increased within 12 days, while the inflammatory parameters C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and interleukin-6 decreased. Importantly, the mortality was lower than expected and calculated by the SOFA score. In conclusion, in this preliminary uncontrolled case series of eight shock patients with life-threatening COVID-19 and ARDS, the administration of Adrecizumab was followed by a favorable outcome. Although the non-controlled design and the small sample size preclude any definitive statement about the potential efficacy of Adrecizumab in critically ill COVID-19 patients, the results of this case series are encouraging.

"Tomorrow Never Dies": Recent Advances in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention Modalities against Coronavirus (COVID-19) amid Controversies

The outbreak of novel coronavirus disease (2019-nCoV or COVID-19) is responsible for severe health emergency throughout the world. The attack of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is found to be responsible for COVID-19. The World Health Organization has declared the ongoing global public health emergency as a pandemic. The whole world fights against this invincible enemy in various capacities to restore economy, lifestyle, and safe life. Enormous amount of scientific research work(s), administrative strategies, and economic measurements are in place to create a successful step against COVID-19. Furthermore, differences in opinion, facts, and implementation methods laid additional layers of complexities in this battle against survival. Thus, a timely overview of the recent, important, and overall inclusive developments against this pandemic is a pressing need for better understanding and dealing with COVID-19. In this review, we have systematically summarized the epidemiological studies, clinical features, biological properties, diagnostic methods, treatment modalities, and preventive measurements related to COVID-19.

Evaluation of the commercially available LightMix® Modular E-gene kit using clinical and proficiency testing specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection

BACKGROUND

Rapid and sensitive diagnostic assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection are required for prompt patient management and infection control. The analytical and clinical performances of LightMix® Modular SARS and Wuhan CoV E-gene kit, a widely used commercial assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection, have not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance characteristics of the LightMix® E-gene kit in comparison with well-validated in-house developed COVID-19 RT-PCR assays.

STUDY DESIGN

Serial dilutions of SARS-CoV-2 culture isolate extracts were used for analytical sensitivity evaluation. A total of 289 clinical specimens from 186 patients with suspected COVID-19 and 8 proficiency testing (PT) samples were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the LightMix® E-gene kit against in-house developed COVID-19-RdRp/Hel and COVID-19-N RT-PCR assays.

RESULTS

The LightMix® E-gene kit had a limit of detection of 1.8 × 10-1 TCID50/mL, which was one log10 lower than those of the two in-house RT-PCR assays. The LightMix® E-gene kit (149/289 [51.6%]) had similar sensitivity as the in-house assays (144/289 [49.8%] for RdRp/Hel and 146/289 [50.5%] for N). All three assays gave correct results for all the PT samples. Cycle threshold (Cp) values of the LightMix® E-gene kit and in-house assays showed excellent correlation. Reproducibility of the Cp values was satisfactory with intra- and inter-assay coefficient of variation values <5%. Importantly, the LightMix® E-gene kit, when used as a stand-alone assay, was equally sensitive as testing algorithms using multiple COVID-19 RT-PCR assays.

CONCLUSIONS

The LightMix® E-gene kit is a rapid and sensitive assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. It has fewer verification requirements compared to laboratory-developed tests.

Multicenter comparison of the Cobas 6800 system with the RealStar RT-PCR kit for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

Background

RT-PCR testing is crucial in the diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The use of reliable and comparable PCR assays is a cornerstone to allow use of different PCR assays depending on the local equipment. In this work, we provide a comparison of the Cobas® (Roche) and the RealStar® assay (Altona).

Methods

Assessment of the two assays was performed prospectively in three reference Parisians hospitals, using 170 clinical samples. They were tested with the Cobas® assay, selected to obtain a distribution of cycle threshold (Ct) as large as possible, and tested with the RealStar assay with three largely available extraction platforms: QIAsymphony (Qiagen), MagNAPure (Roche) and NucliSENS-easyMag (BioMérieux).

Results

Overall, the agreement (positive for at least one gene) was 76 %. This rate differed considerably depending on the Cobas Ct values for gene E: below 35 (n = 91), the concordance was 99 %. Regarding the positive Ct values, linear regression analysis showed a coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.88 and the Deming regression line revealed a strong correlation with a slope of 1.023 and an intercept of -3.9. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the mean difference (Cobas® minus RealStar®) was + 3.3 Ct, with a SD of + 2.3 Ct.

Conclusions

In this comparison, both RealStar® and Cobas® assays provided comparable qualitative results and a high correlation when both tests were positive. Discrepancies exist after 35 Ct and varied depending on the extraction system used for the RealStar® assay, probably due to a low viral load close to the detection limit of both assays.

A Rapid, Simple, Inexpensive, and Mobile Colorimetric Assay COVID-19-LAMP for Mass On-Site Screening of COVID-19

To control the COVID-19 pandemic and prevent its resurgence in areas preparing for a return of economic activities, a method for a rapid, simple, and inexpensive point-of-care diagnosis and mass screening is urgently needed. We developed and evaluated a one-step colorimetric reverse-transcriptional loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay (COVID-19-LAMP) for detection of SARS-CoV-2, using SARS-CoV-2 isolate and respiratory samples from patients with COVID-19 (n = 223) and other respiratory virus infections (n = 143). The assay involves simple equipment and techniques and low cost, without the need for expensive qPCR machines, and the result, indicated by color change, is easily interpreted by naked eyes. COVID-19-LAMP can detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA with detection limit of 42 copies/reaction. Of 223 respiratory samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 by qRT-PCR, 212 and 219 were positive by COVID-19-LAMP at 60 and 90 min (sensitivities of 95.07% and 98.21%) respectively, with the highest sensitivities among nasopharyngeal swabs (96.88% and 98.96%), compared to sputum/deep throat saliva samples (94.03% and 97.02%), and throat swab samples (93.33% and 98.33%). None of the 143 samples with other respiratory viruses were positive by COVID-19-LAMP, showing 100% specificity. Samples with higher viral load showed shorter detection time, some as early as 30 min. This inexpensive, highly sensitive and specific COVID-19-LAMP assay can be useful for rapid deployment as mobile diagnostic units to resource-limiting areas for point-of-care diagnosis, and for unlimited high-throughput mass screening at borders to reduce cross-regional transmission.

An evolving approach to the laboratory assessment of COVID-19

As the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) outbreak has evolved in each country, the approach to the laboratory assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection has had to evolve as well. This review addresses the evolving approach to the laboratory assessment of COVID‐19 and discusses how algorithms for testing have been driven, in part, by the demand for testing overwhelming the capacity to accomplish such testing. This review focused on testing in the USA, as this testing is evolving, whereas in China and other countries such as South Korea testing is widely available and includes both molecular testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 as well as serological testing using both enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay methodology and lateral flow immunoassay methodology. Although commercial testing systems are becoming available, there will likely be insufficient numbers of such tests due to high demand. Serological testing will be the next testing issue as the COVID‐19 begins to subside. This will allow immunity testing as well as will allow the parameters of the COVID‐19 outbreak to be defined.

International external quality assessment for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection and survey on clinical laboratory preparedness during the COVID-19 pandemic, April/May 2020

Laboratory preparedness with quality-assured diagnostic assays is essential for controlling the current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. We conducted an external quality assessment study with inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) samples to support clinical laboratories with a proficiency testing option for molecular assays. To analyse SARS-CoV-2 testing performance, we used an online questionnaire developed for the European Union project RECOVER to assess molecular testing capacities in clinical diagnostic laboratories.

Clinical Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Tests

Molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the gold standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the clinical performance of these tests is still poorly understood, particularly with regard to disease course, patient-specific factors, and viral shedding. From 10 March to 1 May 2020, NewYork-Presbyterian laboratories performed 27,377 SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays from 22,338 patients. Repeat testing was performed for 3,432 patients, of which 2,413 had initial negative and 802 had initial positive results.

Molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the gold standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the clinical performance of these tests is still poorly understood, particularly with regard to disease course, patient-specific factors, and viral shedding. From 10 March to 1 May 2020, NewYork-Presbyterian laboratories performed 27,377 SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays from 22,338 patients. Repeat testing was performed for 3,432 patients, of which 2,413 had initial negative and 802 had initial positive results. Repeat-tested patients were more likely to have severe disease and low viral loads. The negative predictive value of the first-day result among repeat-tested patients was 81.3% The clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays was estimated between 58% and 96%, depending on the unknown number of false-negative results in single-tested patients. Conversion to negative was unlikely to occur before 15 to 20 days after initial testing or 20 to 30 days after the onset of symptoms, with 50% conversion occurring at 28 days after initial testing. Conversion from first-day negative to positive results increased linearly with each day of testing, reaching 25% probability in 20 days. Sixty patients fluctuated between positive and negative results over several weeks, suggesting that caution is needed when single-test results are acted upon. In summary, our study provides estimates of the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays and suggests time frames for appropriate repeat testing, namely, 15 to 20 days after a positive test and the same day or next 2 days after a negative test for patients with high suspicion for COVID-19.

Microfluidic Immunoassays for Sensitive and Simultaneous Detection of IgG/IgM/Antigen of SARS-CoV-2 within 15 min

The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 is posing serious global public health problems. Facing the emergence of this pandemic, we established a portable microfluidic immunoassay system for easy-to-use, sensitive, rapid (<15 min), multiple, and on-site detection of IgG/IgM/Antigen of SARS-CoV-2 simultaneously. This integrated method was successfully applied for detecting SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in clinical human serum as well as SARS-CoV-2 antigen in pharyngeal swabs from 26 patients with COVID-19 infection and 28 uninfected people. The assay demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, which is promising for the diagnosis and monitoring as well as control of SARS-CoV-2 worldwide.

Microfluidic Immunoassays for Sensitive and Simultaneous Detection of IgG/IgM/Antigen of SARS-CoV-2 within 15 min

The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 is posing serious global public health problems. Facing the emergence of this pandemic, we established a portable microfluidic immunoassay system for easy-to-use, sensitive, rapid (<15 min), multiple, and on-site detection of IgG/IgM/Antigen of SARS-CoV-2 simultaneously. This integrated method was successfully applied for detecting SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in clinical human serum as well as SARS-CoV-2 antigen in pharyngeal swabs from 26 patients with COVID-19 infection and 28 uninfected people. The assay demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, which is promising for the diagnosis and monitoring as well as control of SARS-CoV-2 worldwide.

Clinical evaluation of five different automated SARS-CoV-2 serology assays in a cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients

•

Clinical performance of five different commercially available automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests.

•

No overlap of “false” positive samples between different serology assays was observed.

•

The ability to rule out acute SARS-CoV-2 infection at hospital admission with serology is limited.

Background

The global market for SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays is becoming ever more crowded with antibody-tests of various formats, targets and technologies, careful evaluation is crucial for understanding the implications of individual test results. Here, we evaluate the clinical performance of five automated immunoassays on a set of clinical samples.

Methods

Serum/plasma samples of 75 confirmed COVID-19 patients and 320 pre-pandemic serum samples of healthy blood donors were subjected to two IgG and three total antibody SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays. All test setups were automated workflows.

Results

Positivity of assays (onset of symptoms > 10 days) ranged between 68.4 % and 81.6 % (Diasorin 68.4 %, Euroimmun 70.3 %, Siemens 73.7 %, Roche 79.0 % and Wantai 81.6 %). All examined assays demonstrated high specificity of >99 % (Euroimmun, Diasorin: 99.1 %, Wantai: 99.4 %) but only two reached levels above 99.5 % (Roche: 99.7 %, Siemens 100 %). Interestingly, there was no overlap in false positive results between the assays. The strongest correlation of quantitative results was observed between the Diasorin and Euroimmun IgG tests (r² = 0.76). Overall, we observed no difference in the distribution of test results between female and male patients (p-values: 0.18−0.87). A significant difference between severely versus critically ill patients was demonstrated for the Euroimmun, Diasorin, Wantai and Siemens assays (p-values: < 0.041).

Conclusion

All assays showed good clinical performance. Our data confirm that orthogonal test strategies as recommended by the CDC can enhance clinical specificity. However, the suboptimal rates of test positivity found at time of hospitalization in this cohort underline the importance of molecular diagnostics to rule out/confirm active infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Capillary electrophoresis of PCR fragments with 5´-labelled primers for testing the SARS-Cov-2

Due to the huge demand for SARS-Cov-2 determination,alternatives to the standard qtPCRtestsare potentially useful for increasing the number of samples screened. Our aim was to develop a direct fluorescent PCR capillary-electrophoresis detection of the viral genome. We validated this approach on several SARS-Cov-2 positive and negative samples.We isolated the naso-pharingealRNA from 20 positive and 10 negative samples. The cDNA was synthesised and two fragments of the SARS-Cov-2 were amplified. One of the primers for each pair was 5´-end fluorochrome labelled. The amplifications were subjected to capillary electrophoresis in ABI3130 sequencers to visualize the fluorescent peaks.The two SARS-Cov-2 fragments were successfully amplified in the positive samples, while the negative samples did not render fluorescent peaks. In conclusion, we describe and alternative method to identify the SARS-Cov-2 genome that could be scaled to the analysis of approximately 100 samples in less than 5 h. By combining a standard PCR with capillary electrophoresis our approach would overcome the limits imposed to many labs by the qtPCR and increase the testing capacity.

Serological survey of SARS-CoV-2 for experimental, domestic, companion and wild animals excludes intermediate hosts of 35 different species of animals

The pandemic SARS-CoV-2 has been reported in 123 countries with more than 5,000 patients died from it. However, the original and intermediate hosts of the virus remain unknown. In this study, 1,914 serum samples from 35 animal species were used for detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies using double-antigen sandwich ELISA after validating its specificity and sensitivity. The results showed that no SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were detected in above samples which excluded the possibility of 35 animal species as intermediate host for SARS-CoV-2. More importantly, companion animals including pet dogs (including one dog the SARS-CoV-2 patient kept and two dogs which had close contact with it) and cats, street dogs and cats also showed serological negative to SARS-CoV-2, which relieved the public concerns for the pets as SARS-CoV-2 carriers.

Rapid Development and Validation of a Novel Laboratory-Derived Test for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Objectives

To increase testing capability for SARS-CoV-2 during a rapidly evolving public health emergency, we aimed to deploy a validated laboratory-developed real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 on an accelerated timeline and using reagent supply chains that were not constrained.

Methods

A real-time RT-PCR assay that detects the structural envelope (E) gene of SARS-CoV-2 was developed and validated on the Roche cobas 6800 instrument platform with the omni Utility channel reagents, which performs automated nucleic acid extraction and purification, PCR amplification, and detection. In silico analysis was performed for both inclusivity of all SARS-CoV-2 variants and cross reactivity with other pathogenic organisms. Positive control material was used to determine the Limit of Detection (LOD) and patient samples (positive and negative) confirmed by another authorized assay were used for clinical validation. Experiments were carried out at the Christiana Care Health System’s Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory (Newark, DE) between April 1 and April 4, 2020.

Results

A real-time RT-PCR assay for SARS-Cov-2 was developed and validated in just two weeks. For all oligonucleotides, 100% homology to the available SARS-CoV-2 sequences was observed. Greater than 80% homology between one or more oligonucleotides was observed for SARS-Cov (Urbani strain) and Influenza A, however risk of cross reactivity was deemed to be low. The limit of detection (LOD) of the assay was 250 copies/mL. The assay identified 100% of positive patient samples (30/30) and 100% of negative patient samples (29/29 patient negatives and 1/1 saline). Up to 92 samples can be run on a single plate and analysis takes approximately 3.5 hours.

Conclusions

In this work, we demonstrate the development and validation of a single target laboratory-developed test for SARS-CoV-2 in two weeks. Key considerations for complementary supply chains enabled development on an accelerated timeline and an increase in testing capability.

Clinical evaluation of AusDiagnostics SARS-CoV-2 multiplex tandem PCR assay

BACKGROUND

In the context of the pandemic, the rapid emergency use authorisation of diagnostic assays for SARS-CoV-2 has meant there are few peer-reviewed published studies of clinical performance of commercial assays.

AIMS

To evaluate the clinical performance of AusDiagnostics respiratory multiplex tandem PCR assay including SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We reviewed the results following implementation of AusDiagnostics respiratory multiplex tandem PCR assay including SARS-CoV-2, and compared with an in-house RT-PCR assay at our State Reference Laboratory.

RESULTS

Initial validation using AusDiagnostics coronavirus multiplex tandem PCR assay including SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated good concordance with the State Reference Laboratory. After implementing the AusDiagnostics respiratory multiplex tandem PCR assay including SARS-CoV-2, we tested 7839 samples. 127 samples in which SARS-CoV-2 was detected using the AusDiagnostics assay were referred for testing at the State Reference Laboratory, with concordant results in 118/127 (92.9%) of samples. After resolution of discrepancies, 125/127 (98.4%) of AusDiagnostics results were determined to be true positive results. Out of 7839 samples tested for SARS-CoV-2 during this period, only 2 tests (0.02%) were indeterminate results.

CONCLUSION

The AusDiagnostics respiratory MT-PCR assay is a reliable assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Clinical evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay on a fully automated system for rapid on-demand testing in the hospital setting

BACKGROUND

The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presents a unique challenge for diagnostic laboratories around the world. Automation of workflows in molecular diagnostics is instrumental for coping with the large number of tests ordered by clinicians, as well as providing fast-tracked rapid testing for highly urgent cases. In this study we evaluated a SARS-CoV-2 LDT for the NeuMoDx 96 system, a fully automated device performing extraction and real-time PCR.

METHODS

A publicly available SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay was adapted for the automated system. Analytical performance was evaluated using in-vitro transcribed RNA and clinical performance was compared to the cobas 6800-based reference assay within the lab.

RESULTS

The Envelope (E) Gene-LDT displayed good analytical performance with an LoD of 95.55 cp/mL and no false positives during evaluation of cross-reactivity. A total of 176 patient samples were tested with both the E-Gene-LDT and the reference assay. Positive and negative agreement were 100 % and 99.2 % respectively. Invalid-rate was 6.3 %.

CONCLUSION

The E-Gene-LDT showed analytical and clinical performance comparable to the cobas6800-based reference assay. Due to its random-access workflow concept and rapid time-to-result of about 80 min, the system is very well suited for providing fast-tracked SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics for urgent clinical samples in the hospital setting.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys.

SEARCH METHODS

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. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

Dying with SARS-CoV-2 infection-an autopsy study of the first consecutive 80 cases in Hamburg, Germany

Autopsies of deceased with a confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can provide important insights into the novel disease and its course. Furthermore, autopsies are essential for the correct statistical recording of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths. In the northern German Federal State of Hamburg, all deaths of Hamburg citizens with ante- or postmortem PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection have been autopsied since the outbreak of the pandemic in Germany. Our evaluation provides a systematic overview of the first 80 consecutive full autopsies. A proposal for the categorisation of deaths with SARS-CoV-2 infection is presented (category 1: definite COVID-19 death; category 2: probable COVID-19 death; category 3: possible COVID-19 death with an equal alternative cause of death; category 4: SARS-CoV-2 detection with cause of death not associated to COVID-19). In six cases, SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed postmortem by a positive PCR test in a nasopharyngeal or lung tissue swab. In the other 74 cases, SARS-CoV-2 infection had already been known antemortem. The deceased were aged between 52 and 96 years (average 79.2 years, median 82.4 years). In the study cohort, 34 deceased were female (38%) and 46 male (62%). Overall, 38% of the deceased were overweight or obese. All deceased, except for two women, in whom no significant pre-existing conditions were found autoptically, had relevant comorbidities (in descending order of frequency): (1) diseases of the cardiovascular system, (2) lung diseases, (3) central nervous system diseases, (4) kidney diseases, and (5) diabetes mellitus. A total of 76 cases (95%) were classified as COVID-19 deaths, corresponding to categories 1-3. Four deaths (5%) were defined as non-COVID-19 deaths with virus-independent causes of death. In eight cases, pneumonia was combined with a fulminant pulmonary artery embolism. Peripheral pulmonary artery embolisms were found in nine other cases. Overall, deep vein thrombosis has been found in 40% of the cases. This study provides the largest overview of autopsies of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients presented so far.

Complete Genome Sequence of a SARS-CoV-2 Strain Isolated in Northern Germany

Here, we describe the complete genome sequence of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strain isolated from an oropharyngeal swab sample from a female patient with COVID-19 who was infected in Hamburg, northern Germany.

Here, we describe the complete genome sequence of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) strain isolated from an oropharyngeal swab sample from a female patient with COVID-19 who was infected in Hamburg, northern Germany.

Comparison five primer sets from different genome region of COVID-19 for detection of virus infection by conventional RT-PCR

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The new beta-coronavirus, which caused Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus-2 Syndrome (SARS-CoV-2), a major respiratory outbreak in Wuhan, China in December 2019, is now prevalent in many countries around the world. Identifying PCR-based viruses is a well-known and relatively stable protocol. Unfortunately, the high mutation rates may lead to widespread changes in viral nucleic acid sequences, and so using specific primers for PCR can be recommended. In this study, we evaluated the power of a conventional RT-PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA among the five set primer sets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The five genomic regions of the Coronavirus SARS-2 virus including Nucleocapsids (N), Envelope (E), RNA depended RNA Polymerase (RdRp), ORF1ab and Spike (S) were selected for primer designing. A conventional RT-PCR was performed to compare sensitivity, specificity and other analytical characteristics of primers designed against two Real Time PCR commercial kits.

RESULTS

The result of the comparative analysis showed that the ORF1ab, N and RdRp primers had a sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value higher than other primers. A significant difference in the analytical sensitivity between the studied primer sets in RT-PCR kits was observed.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the ORF1ab, Nucleocapsid and RdRp regions have the best primers for identifying the SARS-CoV-2 RNA between different genes that have been suggested.

Primer design for quantitative real-time PCR for the emerging Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2

In December 2019, a new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak occurred in Wuhan, China. Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans, is highly contagious and has rapidly expanded worldwide since its discovery. Quantitative nucleic acid testing has become the gold standard for diagnosis and guiding clinical decisions regarding the use of antiviral therapy. However, the RT-qPCR assays targeting SARS-CoV-2 have a number of challenges, especially in terms of primer design. Primers are the pivotal components of a RT-qPCR assay. Once virus mutation and recombination occur, it is difficult to effectively diagnose viral infection by existing RT-qPCR primers. Some primers and probes have also been made available on the WHO website for reference. However, no previous review has systematically compared the previously reported primers and probes and described how to design new primers in the event of a new coronavirus infection. This review focuses on how primers and probes can be designed methodically and rationally, and how the sensitivity and specificity of the detection process can be improved. This brief review will be useful for the accurate diagnosis and timely treatment of the new coronavirus pneumonia.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Human Retinal Biopsies of Deceased COVID-19 Patients

PURPOSE

To report the presence of viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in human retina in deceased patients with confirmed novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fourteen eyes of 14 deceased patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease were enucleated during autopsy. A sample of human retina was secured and fixed in RNAlater™. Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed to detect three different viral RNA sequences (RdRp-gene, E-gene and Orf1 gene) of SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

In three out of 14 eyes SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected in the retina of deceased COVID-19 patients. As analysis for three different sequences (RdRp-gene, E-gene and Orf1 gene) revealed positive results in RT-PCR, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in human retina is proven according to the standards of the World-Health-Organization.

CONCLUSION

Viral RNA of SARS-CoV-2 is detectable in the retina of COVID-19 patients.

The Allplex 2019-nCoV (Seegene) assay: which performances are for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis?

Several commercial assays for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR are available but few of them were assessed. We evaluate the Allplex 2019-nCoV (Seegene) assay using 41 nasopharyngeal samples. The rates of agreement were 92.7% and 100% with the GeneFinder COVID-19 plus (Elitech) and the diagnosis of the infectious disease specialist respectively. Four samples display a Ct < 22.0 for the E and RdRp genes while the N gene was not detected, suggesting a variability of the viral sequence. There was no cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses. The Allplex 2019-nCoV appears as a reliable method, but additional evaluations using more samples are needed. RT-PCR assays should probably include at least 2 viral targets.

Clinical Evaluation of the cobas SARS-CoV-2 Test and a Diagnostic Platform Switch during 48 Hours in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Laboratories are currently witnessing extraordinary demand globally for sampling devices, reagents, consumables, and diagnostic instruments needed for timely diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. To meet diagnostic needs as the pandemic grows, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently granted several commercial SARS-CoV-2 tests Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), but manufacturer-independent evaluation data are scarce. We performed the first manufacturer-independent evaluation of the fully automated sample-to-result two-target test cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 (cobas) (Roche Molecular Systems, Branchburg, NJ), which received U.

Laboratories are currently witnessing extraordinary demand globally for sampling devices, reagents, consumables, and diagnostic instruments needed for timely diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. To meet diagnostic needs as the pandemic grows, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently granted several commercial SARS-CoV-2 tests Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), but manufacturer-independent evaluation data are scarce. We performed the first manufacturer-independent evaluation of the fully automated sample-to-result two-target test cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 (cobas) (Roche Molecular Systems, Branchburg, NJ), which received U.S. FDA EUA on 12 March 2020. The comparator was a standardized 3-h SARS-CoV-2 protocol, consisting of RNA extraction using an automated portable instrument, followed by a two-target reverse transcription real-time PCR (RT-PCR), which our laboratory has routinely used since January 2020 [V. M. Corman, O. Landt, M. Kaiser, R. Molenkamp, et al., Euro Surveill 25(3):pii=2000045, 2020, https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045]. cobas and the comparator showed overall agreement of 98.1% and a kappa value of 0.95 on an in-house validation panel consisting of 217 well-characterized retrospective samples. Immediate prospective head-to-head comparative evaluation followed on 502 samples, and the diagnostic approaches showed overall agreement of 99.6% and a kappa value of 0.98. A good correlation (r² = 0.96) between cycle threshold values for SARS-CoV-2-specific targets obtained by cobas and the comparator was observed. Our results showed that cobas is a reliable assay for qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples collected in the Universal Transport Medium System (UTM-RT) (Copan, Brescia, Italy). Under the extraordinary circumstances that laboratories are facing worldwide, a safe diagnostic platform switch is feasible in only 48 h and in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic if carefully planned and executed.

The epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19

In December 2019, the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in China spread worldwide, becoming an emergency of major international concern. SARS-CoV-2 infection causes clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Human-to-human transmission via droplets, contaminated hands or surfaces has been described, with incubation times of 2-14 days. Early diagnosis, quarantine, and supportive treatments are essential to cure patients. This paper reviews the literature on all available information about the epidemiology, diagnosis, isolation and treatments of COVID-19. Treatments, including antiviral agents, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, antibodies, convalescent plasma transfusion and vaccines, are discussed in this article. In addition, registered trials investigating treatment options for COVID-19 infection are listed.

Laboratory Tests for COVID-19: A Review of Peer-Reviewed Publications and Implications for Clinical Use

Diagnostic tests for the coronavirus infection 2019 (COVID-19) are critical for prompt diagnosis, treatment and isolation to break the cycle of transmission. A positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), in conjunction with clinical and epidemiologic data, is the current standard for diagnosis, but several challenges still exist. Serological assays help to understand epidemiology better and to evaluate vaccine responses but they are unreliable for diagnosis in the acute phase of illness or assuming protective immunity. Serology is gaining attention, mainly because of convalescent plasma gaining importance as treatment for clinically worsening COVID-19 patients. We provide a narrative review of peer-reviewed research studies on RT-PCR, serology and antigen immune-assays for COVID-19, briefly describe their lab methods and discuss their limitations for clinical practice.

Do we know the diagnostic properties of the tests used in COVID-19? A rapid review of recently published literature

COVID-19 has brought death and disease to large parts of the world. Governments must deploy strategies to screen the population and subsequently isolate the suspect cases. Diagnostic testing is critical for epidemiological surveillance, but the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) and clinical utility (impact on health outcomes) of the current diagnostic methods used for SARS-CoV-2 detection are not known. I ran a quick search in PubMed/MEDLINE to find studies on laboratory diagnostic tests and rapid viral diagnosis. After running the search strategies, I found 47 eligible articles that I discuss in this review, commenting on test characteristics and limitations. I did not find any papers that report on the clinical utility of the tests currently used for COVID-19 detection, meaning that we are fighting a battle without proper knowledge of the proportion of false negatives that current testing is resulting in. This shortcoming should not be overlooked as it might hamper national efforts to contain the pandemic through testing community-based suspect cases.

Highly sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by multiplex rRT-PCR for molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 by clinical laboratories

BACKGROUND

The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is used to confirm the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 by molecular diagnostic laboratories. We developed a multiplex rRT-PCR methodology for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

METHODS

Three genes were used for multiplex rRT-PCR: the Sarbecovirus specific E gene, the SARS-CoV-2 specific N gene, and the human ABL1 gene as an internal control.

RESULTS

Good correlation of C_q values was observed between the simplex and multiplex rRT-PCR methodologies. Low copies (<25 copies/reaction) of SARS-CoV-2 RNA were detected by the novel multiplex rRT-PCR method.

CONCLUSION

The proposed multiplex rRT-PCR methodology will enable highly sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, reducing reagent use and cost, and time required by clinical laboratory technicians.

Tracheostomy during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Recommendations from the New York Head and Neck Society

The rapid spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 in 2019 and 2020 has resulted in a worldwide pandemic characterized by severe pulmonary inflammation, effusions, and rapid respiratory compromise. The result of this pandemic is a large and increasing number of patients requiring endotracheal intubation and prolonged ventilator support. The rapid rise in endotracheal intubations coupled with prolonged ventilation requirements will certainly lead to an increase in tracheostomy procedures in the coming weeks and months. Performing tracheostomy in the setting of active SARS‐CoV‐2, when necessary, poses a unique situation, with unique risks and benefits for both the patient and the health care providers. The New York Head and Neck Society has collaborated on this document to provide guidance on the performance of tracheostomies during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic.

Updating the diagnostic criteria of COVID-19 "suspected case" and "confirmed case" is necessary

On 6 February 2020, our team had published a rapid advice guideline for diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection, and this guideline provided our experience and make well reference for fighting against this pandemic worldwide. However, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a new disease, our awareness and knowledge are gradually increasing based on the ongoing research findings and clinical practice experience; hence, the strategies of diagnosis and treatment are also continually updated. In this letter, we answered one comment on our guideline and provided the newest diagnostic criteria of "suspected case" and "confirmed case" according to the latest Diagnosis and Treatment Guidelines for COVID-19 (seventh version) that issued by the National Health Committee of the People's Republic of China.

Covid-19: implications for prehospital, emergency and hospital care in patients with acute coronary syndromes

Hospitals play a critical role in providing communities with essential medical care during all types of disaster. Depending on their scope and nature, disasters can lead to a rapidly increasing service demand that can overwhelm the functional capacity and safety of hospitals and the healthcare system at large. Planning during the community outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is critical for maintaining healthcare services during our response. This paper describes, besides general measures in times of a pandemic, also the necessary changes in the invasive diagnosis and treatment of patients presenting with different entities of acute coronary syndromes including structural adaptations (networks, spokes and hub centres) and therapeutic adjustments.

COVID-19: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of commercial assays registered in Brazil

The accuracy of commercially available tests for COVID-19 in Brazil remains unclear. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to describe the accuracy of available tests to detect COVID-19 in Brazil. We searched at the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) online platform to describe the pooled sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) for detection of IgM/IgG antibodies and for tests using naso/oropharyngeal swabs in the random-effects models. We identified 16 tests registered, mostly rapid-tests. Pooled diagnostic accuracy measures [95%CI] were: (i) for IgM antibodies Se=82% [76-87]; Sp=97% [96-98]; DOR=168 [92-305] and SROC=0.98 [0.96-0.99]; (ii) for IgG antibodies Se=97% [90-99]; Sp=98% [97-99]; DOR=1994 [385-10334] and SROC=0.99 [0.98-1.00]; and (iii) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by antigen or molecular assays in naso/oropharyngeal swabs Se=97% [85-99]; Sp=99% [77-100]; DOR=2649 [30-233056] and SROC=0.99 [0.98-1.00]. These tests can be helpful for emergency testing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. However, it is important to highlight the high rate of false negative results from tests which detect SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies in the initial course of the disease and the scarce evidence-based validation results published in Brazil. Future studies addressing the diagnostic performance of tests for COVID-19 in the Brazilian population are urgently needed.

Rapid, ultrasensitive and highly specific biosensor for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical blood samples

IgG–IgM immunochromatographic strip for rapid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection including confirmed patients, suspect and asymptomatic carriers in 15 min.

Development of a lateral flow immunoassay strip for rapid detection of IgG antibody against SARS-CoV-2 virus

Rapid and simple LFIA strips based on Au NPs provide a preliminary test result for physicians to make the correct diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections along with alternative testing methods.