Comparison of commercial assays and laboratory developed tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2

Analytical validation of quantitative SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic and viral load laboratory developed tests conducted on the Panther Fusion® (Hologic) with preliminary application to clinical samples

OBJECTIVE

Validate the performance characteristics of two analyte specific, laboratory developed tests (LDTs) for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) and viral load on the Hologic Panther Fusion® using the Open Access functionality.

METHODS

Custom-designed primers/probe sets targeting the SARS-CoV-2 Envelope gene (E) and subgenomic E were optimized. A 20-day performance validation following laboratory developed test requirements was conducted to assess assay precision, accuracy, analytical sensitivity/specificity, lower limit of detection and reportable range.

RESULTS

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 sgRNA (LDT-Quant sgRNA) assay, which measures intermediates of replication, and viral load (LDT-Quant VLCoV) assay demonstrated acceptable performance. Both assays were linear with an R2 and slope equal to 0.99 and 1.00, respectively. Assay precision was evaluated between 4-6 Log10 with a maximum CV of 2.6% and 2.5% for LDT-Quant sgRNA and LDT-Quant VLCoV respectively. Using negative or positive SARS-CoV-2 human nasopharyngeal swab samples, both assays were accurate (kappa coefficient of 1.00 and 0.92). Common respiratory flora and other viral pathogens were not detected and did not interfere with the detection or quantification by either assay. Based on 95% detection, the assay LLODs were 729 and 1206 Copies/mL for the sgRNA and VL load LDTs, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The LDT-Quant sgRNA and LDT-Quant VLCoV demonstrated good analytical performance. These assays could be further investigated as alternative monitoring assays for viral replication; and thus, medical management in clinical settings which could inform isolation/quarantine requirements.

A Molecular Lateral Flow Assay for SARS-CoV-2 Quantitative Detection

Since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several COVID-19 detection methods, both commercially available and in the lab, have been developed using different biomolecules as analytes and different detection and sampling methods with high analytical performance. Developing novel COVID-19 detection assays is an exciting research field, as rapid accurate diagnosis is a valuable tool to control the current pandemic, and also because the acquired knowledge can be deployed for facing future infectious outbreaks. We here developed a novel gold-nanoparticle-based nucleic acid lateral flow assay for the rapid, visual, and quantitative detection of SARS-CoV-2. Our method was based on the use of a DNA internal standard (competitor) for quantification and involved RT-PCR, the hybridization of biotinylated PCR products to specific oligonucleotide probes, and detection with a dual lateral flow assay using gold nanoparticles conjugated to an anti-biotin antibody as reporters. The developed test allowed for rapid detection by the naked eye and the simultaneous quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs with high specificity, detectability, and repeatability. This novel molecular strip test for COVID-19 detection represents a simple, cost-effective, and accurate rapid test that is very promising to be used as a future diagnostic tool.

FDA authorized molecular point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 tests: A critical review on principles, systems and clinical performances

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, 10 manufacturers of molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2 have received Emergency Use Authorizations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for point-of-care or over the counter use. In this review, the working principle of these tests is described as well as the relevant characteristics (e.g. time-to-result and specimen type). The analytical (e.g. analytical sensitivity) and clinical performance (positive and negative percent agreement) and useability characteristics (e.g. cost, reusability and throughput) of these tests are compared and critically reviewed. Also details for relevant respiratory multiplex assays of these 10 manufacturers are discussed. Critical review of scientific literature on these authorized tests revealed that for many of these tests publications are almost or completely absent, with the exception of two systems. The Xpert Xpress has been thoroughly investigated and good performance has been reported, whereas ID NOW is also well-represented in literature, but has relatively low sensitivity.

Agile design and development of a high throughput cobas SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR diagnostic test

Diagnostic testing is essential for management of the COVID-19 pandemic. An agile assay design methodology, optimized for the cobas® 6800/8800 system, was used to develop a dual-target, qualitative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test using commercially available reagents and existing sample processing and thermocycling profiles. The limit of detection was 30–52 copies/mL for USA-WA1/2020. Assay sensitivity was confirmed for SARS-CoV-2 variants Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Kappa. The coefficients of variation of the cycle threshold number (Ct) were between 1.1 and 2.2%. There was no difference in Ct using nasopharyngeal compared to oropharyngeal swabs in universal transport medium (UTM). A small increase in Ct was observed with specimens collected in cobas PCR medium compared to UTM. In silico analysis indicated that the dual-target test is capable of detecting all >1,800,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences in the GISAID database. Our agile assay design approach facilitated rapid development and deployment of this SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Xpert Xpress to SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review

The SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, as well as mortality rate, is high. There is an urgent need for a high-throughput, accurate and reliable method of diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. We included references from databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, and extracted data. Then, MetaDisc and STATA were used to establish forest plots and funnel plots for meta-analysis. We collected 14 articles and performed a systematic review. The following results were obtained: sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98) and 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98) respectively; PLR and NLR were 24.51 (16.63–36.12) and 0.03 (0.01 to 0.10) respectively, DOR was 975.15 (430.11–2210.88), and AUC was 0.9926. When Xpress detects SARS-CoV-2 in different samples, the heterogeneity is small and the specificity and sensitivity are extremely high. We recommend the employment of Xpert Xpress analysis in rapid screening.

Persistence of live virus in critically ill patients infected with SARS-COV-2: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Research on the duration of infectivity of ICU patients with COVID-19 has been sparse. Tests based on Reverse Transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) detect both live virus and non-infectious viral RNA. We aimed to determine the duration of infectiousness based on viral culture of nasopharyngeal samples of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Prospective observational study in adult intensive care units with a diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia. Patients had repeated nasopharyngeal sampling performed after day 10 of ICU admission. Culture positive rate (based on viral culture on Vero cells in a level 4 lab) and Cycle threshold from RT-PCR were measured.

RESULTS

Nine patients of the 108 samples (8.3%, 95% CI 3.9-15.2%) grew live virus at a median of 13 days (interquartile range 11-19) after their initial positive test. 74.1% of patients were RT-PCR positive but culture negative, and the remaining (17.6%) were RT-PCR and culture negative. Cycle threshold showed excellent ability to predict the presence of live virus, with a Ct < 25 with an AUC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.97, p < 0.001). The specificity of a Ct > 25 to predict negative viral culture was 100% (95% CI 70-100%).

CONCLUSION

8.3% of our ICU patients with COVID-19 grew live virus at a median of 13 days post-initial positive RT-PCR test. Severity of illness, use of mechanical ventilation, and time between tests did not predict the presence of live virus. Cycle threshold of > 25 had the best ability to determine the lack of live virus in these patents.

Performance Evaluation of the BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for the BD MAX System

Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 is the standard approach for confirming COVID-19 cases. This study compared results between two emergency use authorization (EUA) NAATs, with two additional EUA NAATs utilized for discrepant testing. The limits of detection (LOD) for the BD SARS-CoV-2 reagents for the BD MAX system (MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay), the bioMérieux BioFire respiratory panel 2.1 (BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay), the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay), and the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay Panther (Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay) NAAT systems were determined using a total of 84 contrived nasopharyngeal specimens with 7 target levels for each comparator. The positive and negative percent agreement (PPA and NPA, respectively) of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay, compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay, was evaluated in a postmarket clinical study utilizing 708 nasopharyngeal specimens collected from suspected COVID-19 cases. Discordant testing was achieved using the cobas and BioFire SARS-CoV-2 NAATs. In this study, the measured LOD for the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay (251 copies/ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], 186 to 427) was comparable to the cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (298 copies/ml; 95% CI, 225 to 509) and the BioFire SARS-CoV-2 assay (302 copies/ml; 95% CI, 219 to 565); the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay had an LOD of 612 copies/ml (95% CI, 474 to 918). The MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay had a PPA of 100% (95% CI, 97.3% to 100.0%) and an NPA of 96.7% (95% CI, 94.9% to 97.9%) compared to the Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay. The clinical performance of the MAX SARS-CoV-2 assay agreed with another sensitive EUA assay.

Feasibility and Effectiveness Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Antigenic Tests in Mass Screening of a Pediatric Population and Correlation with the Kinetics of Viral Loads

The gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). However, rapid antigen detection kits (Ag-RDTs), may offer advantages over NAAT in mass screening, generating results in minutes, both as laboratory-based test or point-of-care (POC) use for clinicians, at a lower cost. We assessed two different POC Ag-RDTs in mass screening versus NAAT for SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of pediatric patients admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Unit of IRCCS-Polyclinic of Sant'Orsola, Bologna (from November 2020 to April 2021). All patients were screened with nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-RNA and for antigen tests. Results were obtained from 1146 patients. The COVID-19 Ag FIA kit showed a baseline sensitivity of 53.8% (CI 35.4-71.4%), baseline specificity 99.7% (CI 98.4-100%) and overall accuracy of 80% (95% CI 0.68-0.91); the AFIAS COVID-19 Ag kit, baseline sensitivity of 86.4% (CI 75.0-93.9%), baseline specificity 98.3% (CI 97.1-99.1%) and overall accuracy of 95.3% (95% CI 0.92-0.99). In both tests, some samples showed very low viral load and negative Ag-RDT. This disagreement may reflect the positive inability of Ag-RDTs of detecting antigen in late phase of infection. Among all cases with positive molecular test and negative antigen test, none showed viral loads > 10⁶ copies/mL. Finally, we found one false Ag-RDTs negative result (low cycle thresholds; 9 × 10⁵ copies/mL). Our results suggest that both Ag-RDTs showed good performances in detection of high viral load samples, making it a feasible and effective tool for mass screening in actively infected children.

Molecular diagnostics in the era of COVID-19

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to escalate globally and acquires new mutations, accurate diagnostic technologies continue to play a vital role in controlling and understanding the epidemiology of this disease. A plethora of technologies have enabled the diagnosis of individuals, informed clinical management, aided population-wide screening to determine transmission rates and identified cases within the wider community and high-risk settings. This review explores the application of molecular diagnostics technologies in controlling the spread of COVID-19, and the key factors that affect the sensitivity and specificity of the tests used.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiologic agent of COVID-19. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection is a critical element of the public health response to COVID-19. Point-of-care (POC) tests can drive patient management decisions for infectious diseases, including COVID-19. POC tests are available for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections and include those that detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens as well as amplified RNA sequences. We provide a review of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests including their performance, settings for which they might be used, their impact and future directions. Further optimization and validation, new technologies as well as studies to determine clinical and epidemiological impact of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests are needed.

Laboratory Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia

The emergence and rapid proliferation of Coronavirus Disease-2019, throughout the past year, has put an unprecedented strain on the global schema of health infrastructure and health economy. The time-sensitive agenda of identifying the virus in humans and delivering a vaccine to the public constituted an effort to flatten the statistical curve of viral spread as it grew exponentially. At the forefront of this effort was an exigency of developing rapid and accurate diagnostic strategies. These have emerged in various forms over the past year—each with strengths and weaknesses. To date, they fall into three categories: (1) those isolating and replicating viral RNA in patient samples from the respiratory tract (Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests; NAATs), (2) those detecting the presence of viral proteins (Rapid Antigen Tests; RATs) and serology-based exams identifying antibodies to the virus in whole blood and serum. The latter vary in their detection of immunoglobulins of known prevalence in early-stage and late-stage infection. With this review, we delineate the categories of testing measures developed to date, analyze the efficacy of collecting patient specimens from diverse regions of the respiratory tract, and present the up and coming technologies which have made pathogen identification easier and more accessible to the public.

SARS-CoV-2 E Gene Variant Alters Analytical Sensitivity Characteristics of Viral Detection Using a Commercial Reverse Transcription-PCR Assay

Diagnostic assays for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are essential for patient management, infection prevention, and the public health response for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The efficacy and reliability of these assays are of paramount importance in both tracking and controlling the spread of the virus. Real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assays rely on a fixed genetic sequence for primer and probe binding. Mutations can potentially alter the accuracy of these assays and lead to unpredictable analytical performance characteristics and false-negative results. Here, we identify a G-to-U transversion (nucleotide 26372) in the SARS-CoV-2 E gene in three specimens with reduced viral detection efficiency using a widely available commercial assay. Further analysis of the public GISAID repository led to the identification of 18 additional genomes with this mutation, which reflect five independent mutational events. This work supports the use of dual-target assays to reduce the number of false-negative PCR results.

Test it earlier, result it faster, makes us stronger: how rapid viral diagnostics enable therapeutic success

The COVID-19 pandemic has entailed simultaneous revolutions in virology diagnostics, clinical trials management, and antiviral therapy and vaccinology. Over the past year, SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing has moved from highly centralized laboratories to at-home and even over the-counter. This transition has been lionized for its potential public health impact via isolation, but has been less examined for its effect on individual health and therapeutics. Since early initiation of antiviral therapy routinely has been associated with greater treatment efficacy for viral infections, these diagnostic testing innovations offer new opportunities for both clinical testing as well as clinical trials for antiviral therapy. Given a rapidly growing antiviral therapeutic pipeline and the profound impact of individual beneficiary outcomes on sculpting reimbursement policy, the therapeutic benefits associated with rapid viral testing may lead to significant adoption beyond potential public health impacts.

Parameters associated with diagnosis of COVID-19 in emergency department

OBJECTIVES

We designed this study to identify laboratory and radiological parameters, which could be useful to guide the clinician, in the evaluation of a suspected case of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19).

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, single-center-study recruited patients with a suspect of COVID-19 data were extracted from electronic medical records using a standardized data collection form.

RESULTS

A total of 566 patients with suspect COVID-19 infection were enrolled (280 were COVID-19+). The COVID-19 population was characterized with bilateral-pneumonia, a lower count of neutrophil, lymphocyte and monocyte, a lower neutrophil to lymphocyte-ratio (NLR). Lower of platelet count, d-dimer, troponin I, and serum calcium were in COVID-19 patients. The occurrence of COVID-19 diagnosis increased, independently of other variables, with pneumonia (odds ratio [OR]: 3.60; p < .001), neutrophil below normal range (OR: 4.15; p < .05), lactate dehydrogenase (OR: 2.09; p < .01) and sodium above normal range (OR: 2.34; p < .01). In patients with possible respiratory acute affections we found a higher neutrophil, higher monocyte, a higher NLR and a more elevation in d-dimer. In the Sepsis group showed higher level of white blood cell, C-reactive protein, d-dimer, and procalcitonin.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that patients with COVID-19 have typical radiological and laboratory characteristics. The parameters highlighted in the study can help identify COVID-19 patients, also highlighting which are the main differential diagnoses to be made and the parameters that facilitate the differential diagnosis.

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.

Caution in interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 quantification based on RT-PCR cycle threshold value

RT-PCR is the reference method for diagnosis of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. During the setting up of 6 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays in our laboratory, comparative evaluations were systematically undertaken and allowed to evidence major discrepancies on cycle threshold RT-PCR results between techniques. These tendencies were confirmed in routine application when analyzing sequential samples from the same patients. Our aim was to examine the impact of the technique among factors influencing RT-PCR result, a far surrogate of ‘viral load’ in the heterogeneous environment of respiratory specimens.

COVID-19 and Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR-Facts and Fallacies

Although molecular testing, and RT-qPCR in particular, has been an indispensable component in the scientific armoury targeting SARS-CoV-2, there are numerous falsehoods, misconceptions, assumptions and exaggerated expectations with regards to capability, performance and usefulness of the technology. It is essential that the true strengths and limitations, although publicised for at least twenty years, are restated in the context of the current COVID-19 epidemic. The main objective of this commentary is to address and help stop the unfounded and debilitating speculation surrounding its use.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) universal screening in gravids during labor and delivery

Objective

To screen pregnant women at risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during delivery using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test and serum immunoglobulin (Ig) testing.

Method

Between March 31 st and August 31 st of 2020, consecutive pregnant women admitted for labor and delivery in a single hospital were screened for SARS-CoV-2 with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR swab tests and detection of serum IgG and IgM.

Results

We studied 266 pregnant women admitted for labor and delivery. The prevalence of acute or past SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.0 %, including (i) two cases with respiratory symptoms of SARS-Co-V-2 infection and positive RT-PCR; (ii) four asymptomatic women with positive RT-PCR without clinical symptoms and negative serological tests between two and 15 weeks later; and (iii) two women with false positive RT-PCR due to technical problems. All newborns of the 6 pregnant women with RT-PCR positive had negative RT-PCR and did not require Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admission. There were eighteen asymptomatic women with positive serological IgG tests and negative RT-PCR.

Conclusion

In our cohort of gravids, we found 2.2 % of women with positive RT-PRC tests and 6.7 % with positive serological tests during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.