Recommendations for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing: a scoping review of current guidance

The protective effect of serum antibodies in preventing SARS-CoV-2 virus entry into cardiac muscle

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been associated with significant cardiovascular complications, including myocardial infection and pulmonary embolism. This study aims to elucidate the relationship between the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the myocardium of the left ventricle and the levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus in deceased COVID-19 patients. We conducted a post-mortem examination on 91 individuals who succumbed to COVID-19-related complications. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the myocardium of the left ventricle was analyzed reverse transcription real time PCR (RT-qPCR) (EliGene® COVID19 UKV/SAV RT kit, Elisabeth Pharmacon), and antibody levels in serum were analyzed by serological assays (VIDAS SARS-COV-2 IgM and VIDAS SARS-COV-2 IgG II tests, BioMérieux). Of the heart tissue samples, 44 % tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Our findings indicate that any detectable level of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of viral penetration into the myocardium by more than fourfold. Specifically, individuals with detectable levels of IgG and IgM antibodies exhibited a significantly reduced presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in cardiac tissues (p<0.0001 for IgG and p<0.001 for IgM). Notably, all patients who died from pulmonary embolism had elevated levels of IgG antibodies. The study underscores the protective role of IgG and IgM antibodies in preventing SARS-CoV-2 penetration into cardiac tissues. However, high antibody titers were associated with fatal outcomes such as pulmonary embolism, pointing to the intricate balance of immune response in COVID-19 pathology. Key words SARS-CoV-2, Antibody, IgG, IgM, Cardiac damage, qPCR, Pneumonia, Pulmonary embolism, Heart failure.

Molecular diagnostic approaches for SARS-CoV-2 detection and pathophysiological consequences

SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus within the Coronaviridae family, is the causative agent behind the respiratory ailment referred to as COVID-19. Operating on a global scale, COVID-19 has led to a substantial number of fatalities, exerting profound effects on both public health and the global economy. The most frequently reported symptoms encompass fever, cough, muscle or body aches, loss of taste or smell, headaches, and fatigue. Furthermore, a subset of individuals may manifest more severe symptoms, including those consistent with viral pneumonitis, which can be so profound as to result in fatalities. Consequently, this situation has spurred the rapid advancement of disease diagnostic technologies worldwide. Predominantly employed in diagnosing COVID-19, the real-time quantitative reverse transcription PCR has been the foremost diagnostic method, effectively detecting SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. As the pandemic has evolved, antigen and serological tests have emerged as valuable diagnostic tools. Antigen tests pinpoint specific viral proteins of SARS-CoV-2, offering swift results, while serological tests identify the presence of antibodies in blood samples. Additionally, there have been notable strides in sample collection methods, notably with the introduction of saliva-based tests, presenting a non-invasive substitute to nasopharyngeal swabs. Given the ongoing mutations in SARS-CoV-2, there has been a continuous need for genomic surveillance, encompassing full genome sequencing and the identification of new variants through Illumina technology and, more recently, nanopore metagenomic sequencing (SMTN). Consequently, while diagnostic testing methods for COVID-19 have experienced remarkable progress, no test is flawless, and there exist limitations with each technique, including sensitivity, specificity, sample collection, and the minimum viral load necessary for accurate detection. These aspects are comprehensively addressed within this current review.

Expansion of testing, isolation, quarantine, e-health and telemonitoring strategies in socioeconomically vulnerable neighbourhoods at primary healthcare in the fight against COVID-19 in Brazil: a study protocol of a multisite testing intervention using a mixed method approach

INTRODUCTION

The key tools for mitigating the impact of COVID-19 and reducing its transmission include testing, quarantine and isolation, as well as telemonitoring. Primary healthcare (PHC) can be essential in increasing access to these tools. Therefore, the primary objective of this study is to implement and expand an intervention consisting of COVID-19 testing, isolation, quarantine and telemonitoring (TQT) strategies and other prevention measures at PHC services in highly socioeconomically vulnerable neighbourhoods of Brazil.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will implement and expand COVID-19 testing in PHC services in two large Brazilian capital cities: Salvador and Rio de Janeiro. Qualitative formative research was conducted to understand the testing context in the communities and at PCH services. The TQT strategy was structured in three subcomponents: (1) training and technical support for tailoring the work processes of health professional teams, (2) recruitment and demand creation strategies and (3) TQT. To evaluate this intervention, we will conduct an epidemiological study with two stages: (1) a cross-sectional sociobehavioural survey among individuals from these two communities covered by PHC services, presenting symptoms associated with COVID-19 or being a close contact of a patient with COVID-19, and (2) a cohort of those who tested positive, collecting clinical data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The WHO Ethics Research Committee (ERC) (#CERC.0128A and #CERC.0128B) and each city's local ERC approved the study protocol (Salvador, ISC/UFBA: #53844121.4.1001.5030; and Rio de Janeiro, INI/Fiocruz: #53844121.4.3001.5240, ENSP/Fiocruz: #53844121.4.3001.5240 and SMS/RJ #53844121.4.3002.5279). Findings will be published in scientific journals and presented at meetings. In addition, informative flyers and online campaigns will be developed to communicate study findings to participants, members of communities and key stakeholders.

Detection of Antibody versus Antigen, Optimal Option of Different Serological Assays Based Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Meta-Analysis

Background

In this study, the diagnostic efficacy of antigen test and antibody test were assessed. Additionally, the difference of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were compared concerning efficacy of antibody test versus antigen test for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis.

Methods

Online databases were searched for full-text publications and STATA software was used for data pooling and analysis before Sep 1st, 2022. Forrest plot was used to show the pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio. Combined receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to show the area of under curve of complex data.

Results

Overall, 25 studies were included. The sensitivity (0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.80) and specificity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-0.99) in antibody or antigen was calculated. The time point of test lead to heterogeneity. The area under curve (AUC) was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99), and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 299.54 (95% CI: 135.61-661.64). Subgroup analysis indicated antibody test with sensitivity (0.59, 95% CI: 0.44-0.73) and specificity (0.98, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99) and antigen test with sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.53-0.91) and specificity of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00). Higher AUC and DOR were proved in antigen test.

Conclusion

The present study compared the efficacy of antibody test versus antigen test for COVID-19 diagnosis. Better diagnostic efficacy, lower heterogeneity, and less publication bias of rapid antigen testing was suggested in this study. This study would help us to make better strategy about choosing rapid and reliable testing method in diagnosis of the COVID-19 disease.

Choice of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test: challenges and key considerations for the future

A plethora of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic tests are available, each with different performance specifications, detection methods, and targets. This narrative review aims to summarize the diagnostic technologies available and how they are best selected to tackle SARS-CoV-2 infection as the pandemic evolves. Seven key settings have been identified where diagnostic tests are being deployed: symptomatic individuals presenting for diagnostic testing and/or treatment of COVID-19 symptoms; asymptomatic individuals accessing healthcare for planned non-COVID-19-related reasons; patients needing to access emergency care (symptom status unknown); patients being discharged from healthcare following hospitalization for COVID-19; healthy individuals in both single event settings (e.g. airports, restaurants, hotels, concerts, and sporting events) and repeat access settings (e.g. workplaces, schools, and universities); and vaccinated individuals. While molecular diagnostics remain central to SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies, we have offered some discussion on the considerations for when other tools and technologies may be useful, when centralized/point-of-care testing is appropriate, and how the various additional diagnostics can be deployed in differently resourced settings. As the pandemic evolves, molecular testing remains important for definitive diagnosis, but increasingly widespread point-of-care testing is essential to the re-opening of society.

Immunogenicity and safety of the booster BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with axial spondyloarthritis treated with biological disease-modifying drugs

Background

Vaccination confers relatively short-term protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), indicating the need for booster doses. Immunocompromised individuals, including those with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), may have pronounced immune response waning. Vaccine-boosted humoral and T-cell responses minimize poor coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) outcome without increasing adverse events (AE). There is limited evidence of third-dose vaccination in axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) patients. We investigated immune-response persistence after primary vaccination and immunogenicity and safety after the BNT162b2 booster vaccination.

Methods

This prospective observational study enrolled an AxSpA cohort treated with interleukin-17 (IL-17) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα) inhibitors. Serum SARS-CoV-2-specific and virus-neutralizing antibodies for humoral response and flow cytometric detection of intracellular cytokines following SARS-CoV-2-specific peptide-based stimulation for T-cell immune responses were assessed, and safety was evaluated via a clinical questionnaire.

Results

Fifteen male AxSpA patients treated with TNFα (73·3%) or IL-17 (26·7%) inhibitors were enrolled and had humoral response persistence at 6 months: 905·6 ( ± 186·1 SD) and 409·1 ( ± 335·7) U/mL. Specific antibody concentrations further increased after booster vaccination to 989·7 ( ± 12·62) and 1000 U/mL and T-cell responders from 53·3% to 80%, with no differences between AxSpA (including “vaccination only” and “hybrid immunity” subgroups) and healthy control (HC) cohorts. No severe AE occurred; the AE spectrum was comparable to that of the general population.

Conclusion

Immune-response persistence after primary vaccination and immunogenicity after booster vaccination were unaffected by anti-IL17 or anti-TNFα therapy with similar AE as in the general population.

Systematic Identification and Critical Appraisal of Pediatric COVID-19 Guidelines Applicable in India

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify and critically appraise the methodological quality of pediatric guidelines applicable to management of COVID-19 in India.

METHODS

Pediatric COVID-19 guidelines applicable to India, published until 30 April 2021, were identified through a systematic search across ten databases. Each was critically appraised for methodological quality using the AGREE-II tool, by at least two appraisers. Median (interquartile range) of the total score and domain-wise scores were calculated, and compared for Indian vs. foreign guidelines, updated vs. original versions of guidelines, and those developed earlier vs. later in the pandemic.

RESULTS

A total of 62 guidelines was identified. Only 8 (12.9%) were published in India. The overall AGREE-II score ranged from 4.7% to 72.8%; with median (IQR) 37.9% (29.4, 48.6). This suggested overall low(er) methodological quality. The median (IQR) domain-wise scores were as follows: Scope and Purpose 66.7% (58.3, 83.3), Stakeholder Involvement 41.7% (30.6, 83.3), Rigor of Development 23.4% (14.8, 37.5), Clarity of Presentation 59.7% (50.0, 75.0), Applicability 27.1% (18.8, 33.3), and Editorial Independence 8.3% (0.0, 45.8). This suggested diversity in quality of different aspects of the guidelines, with very low quality in the critical domain of methodological rigor. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall scores of Indian vs. foreign guidelines, updated versions vs. original versions, and those developed earlier vs. later in the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The currently available pediatric COVID-19 guidelines have low methodological quality, adversely affecting their credibility, validity, and applicability. Urgent corrective strategies are presented for consideration.

As Omicron Takes Hold and Other New Variants Arise, COVID-19 Testing Remains the Universally Agreed Tool to Effect Transition From Pandemic to Endemic State

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused more than 448 million cases and 6 million deaths worldwide to date. Omicron is now the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant, making up more than 90% of cases in countries reporting sequencing data. As the pandemic continues into its third year, continued testing is a strategic and necessary tool for transitioning to an endemic state of COVID-19. Here, we address three critical topics pertaining to the transition from pandemic to endemic: defining the endemic state for COVID-19, highlighting the role of SARS-CoV-2 testing as endemicity is approached, and recommending parameters for SARS-CoV-2 testing once endemicity is reached. We argue for an approach that capitalizes on the current public health momentum to increase capacity for PCR-based testing and whole genome sequencing to monitor emerging infectious diseases. Strategic development and utilization of testing, including viral panels in addition to vaccination, can keep SARS-CoV-2 in a manageable endemic state and build a framework of preparedness for the next pandemic.

Performance Evaluation of Lateral Flow Assays for Coronavirus Disease-19 Serology

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has undoubtedly resulted in significant morbidities, mortalities, and economic disruptions across the globe. Affordable and scalable tools to monitor the transmission dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the longevity of induced antibodies will be paramount to monitor and control the pandemic as multiple waves continue to rage in many countries. Serologic assays detect humoral responses to the virus, to determine seroprevalence in target populations, or induction of antibodies at the individual level following either natural infection or vaccination. With multiple vaccines rolling out globally, serologic assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies will be important tools to monitor the development of herd immunity. To address this need, serologic lateral flow assays (LFAs), which can be easily implemented for both population surveillance and home use, will be vital to monitor the evolution of the pandemic and inform containment measures. Such assays are particularly important for monitoring the transmission dynamics and durability of immunity generated by natural infections and vaccination, particularly in resource-limited settings. In this review, we discuss considerations for evaluating the accuracy of these LFAs, their suitability for different use cases, and implementation opportunities.

Classification Schemes of COVID-19 High Risk Areas and Resulting Policies: A Rapid Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant global health threat since January 2020. Policies to reduce human mobility have been recognized to effectively control the spread of COVID-19; although the relationship between mobility, policy implementation, and virus spread remains contentious, with no clear pattern for how countries classify each other, and determine the destinations to- and from which to restrict travel. In this rapid review, we identified country classification schemes for high-risk COVID-19 areas and associated policies which mirrored the dynamic situation in 2020, with the aim of identifying any patterns that could indicate the effectiveness of such policies. We searched academic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and EMBASE. We also consulted web pages of the relevant government institutions in all countries. This rapid review's searches were conducted between October 2020 and December 2021. Web scraping of policy documents yielded additional 43 country reports on high-risk area classification schemes. In 43 countries from which relevant reports were identified, six issued domestic classification schemes. International classification schemes were issued by the remaining 38 countries, and these mainly used case incidence per 100,000 inhabitants as key indicator. The case incidence cut-off also varied across the countries, ranging from 20 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 7 days to more than 100 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 28 days. The criteria used for defining high-risk areas varied across countries, including case count, positivity rate, composite risk scores, community transmission and satisfactory laboratory testing. Countries either used case incidence in the past 7, 14 or 28 days. The resulting policies included restrictions on internal movement and international travel. The quarantine policies can be summarized into three categories: (1) 14 days self-isolation, (2) 10 days self-isolation and (3) 14 days compulsory isolation.

Challenges Faced in Large-Scale Nucleic Acid Testing during the Sudden Outbreak of the B.1.617.2 (Delta)

The Delta variant (B.1.617.2) has dominated in many countries over the world. Its sudden outbreak in China has led the government to quickly carry out large-scale nucleic acid testing to curb its spread. This qualitative study aims to find the challenges based on empirical evidence from the perspectives of the different groups of people involved in the testing, and further explore possible strategies to improve the efficiency of large-scale nucleic acid testing. Using a phenomenological approach, we selected 35 participants (seven managers, eight health professionals, six community volunteers and 14 residents) by purposive sampling. The interviews were conducted by in-depth semi-structured interviews and the data were analyzed by Colaizzi's seven-step method. Qualitative analysis revealed three main themes: unreasonable and unsafe testing points layout settings, human and medical resources challenges, and potential infection risk. From the different angles, participants all experienced challenges during large-scale nucleic acid testing, making positive planning and adequate preparation important parts of the smooth development of testing. Large-scale nucleic acid testing relies on the cooperation and efforts of all to support containment of the spread of the virus. Local governments should improve their ability to respond to and deal with public health emergencies.

Can We Cryopreserve the Sperm of COVID-19 Patients During the Pandemic?

An extreme strain has been placed on healthcare facilities in the COVID-19 era. Initial stage of the pandemic, national and international societies for reproductive medicine suggested the suspension of new IVF treatments and non-essential cryopreservation of gametes. Accordingly, the demands of cryopreservation of semen with COVID-19 patients also was suspended by some of cryobanks to protect staff and patients from unnecessary viral exposure at the acute stage. However, the pandemic may stay with us longer than expected. In addition, there will be some male COVID-19 patients with cancer or critically illness who needs to cryopreserve their semen before medical treatments, otherwise they might loss the chance of getting their own offspring. In this document, we summarize available evidence to deepen and expand awareness of feasibility of sperm cryopreservation and propose some suggestions to help cryobanks carry out sperm preservation procedure for COVID-19 male patients.

Are surgical and non-operating room intervention safe in the COVID-19 pandemic? A retrospective study

Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on the outcomes of patients undergoing surgery and intervention. This study was conducted between 20 March and 20 May 2020 in six hospitals in Istanbul, and aimed to investigate the effects of surgery and intervention on COVID-19 disease progression, intensive care (ICU) need, mortality and virus transmission to patients and healthcare workers. Patients were examined in three groups: group I underwent emergency surgery, group II had an emergency non-operating room intervention, and group III received inpatient COVID-19 treatment but did not have surgery or undergo intervention. Mortality rates, mechanical ventilation needs and rates of admission to the ICU were compared between the three groups. During this period, patient and healthcare worker transmissions were recorded. In total, 1273 surgical, 476 non-operating room intervention patients and 1884 COVID-19 inpatients were examined. The rate of ICU requirement among patients who had surgery was nearly twice that for inpatients and intervention patients, but there was no difference in mortality between the groups. The overall mortality rates were 2.3% in surgical patients, 3.3% in intervention patients and 3% in inpatients. COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction positivity among hospital workers was 2.4%. Only 3.3% of infected frontline healthcare workers were anaesthesiologists. No deaths occurred among infected healthcare workers. We conclude that emergency surgery and non-operating room interventions during the pandemic period do not increase postoperative mortality and can be performed with low transmission rates.