Implementation of Reverse Transcriptase PCR Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 under the US Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization

Unlocking SARS-CoV-2 detection in low- and middle-income countries

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are significantly affected by SARS-CoV-2, partially due to their limited capacity for local production and implementation of molecular testing. Here, we provide detailed methods and validation of a molecular toolkit that can be readily produced and deployed using laboratory equipment available in LMICs. Our results show that lab-scale production of enzymes and nucleic acids can supply over 50,000 tests per production batch. The optimized one-step RT-PCR coupled to CRISPR-Cas12a-mediated detection showed a limit of detection of 102 ge/μL in a turnaround time of 2 h. The clinical validation indicated an overall sensitivity of 80%-88%, while for middle and high viral load samples (Cq ≤ 31) the sensitivity was 92%-100%. The specificity was 96%-100% regardless of viral load. Furthermore, we show that the toolkit can be used with the mobile laboratory Bento Lab, potentially enabling LMICs to implement detection services in unattended remote regions.

Living the best of both worlds: A personal scientific journey

Opportunity is the essence of a career in science or medicine and this continues to be a major source of satisfaction for the many scientists and health care providers worldwide. Having trained as a PhD scientist, the world of clinical medicine seemed to be a galaxy away. I could not have been more wrong in that assumption. Here, I tell the story of my career trajectory so that those new to the sciences understand the potential and the opportunities afforded by a career in clinical laboratory medicine.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision).  Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16).  Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs.  Hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included.   Bamlanivimab compared to placebo  We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.

Potential drugs against COVID-19 revealed by gene expression profile, molecular docking and molecular dynamic simulation

Aim: SARS-CoV-2, an emerging betacoronavirus, is the causative agent of COVID-19. Currently, there are few specific and selective antiviral drugs for the treatment and vaccines to prevent contagion. However, their long-term effects can be revealed after several years, and new drugs for COVID-19 should continue to be investigated. Materials & methods: In the first step of our study we identified, through a gene expression analysis, several drugs that could act on the biological pathways altered in COVID-19. In the second step, we performed a docking simulation to test the properties of the identified drugs to target SARS-CoV-2. Results: The drugs that showed a higher binding affinity are bardoxolone (-8.78 kcal/mol), irinotecan (-8.40 kcal/mol) and pyrotinib (-8.40 kcal/mol). Conclusion: We suggested some drugs that could be efficient in treating COVID-19.

A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information

BACKGROUND

Home-based rapid diagnostic testing can play an integral role in controlling the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to identify and compare at-home diagnostic tests that have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and convey details about COVID-19 diagnostic tests, including regulatory information, pertinent to pharmacy practice.

METHODS

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online resources pertaining to COVID-19 tests, EUAs, and medical devices were consulted, as were linked resources from FDA's webpages. Homepages of the 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs were comprehensively reviewed. PubMed literature searches were performed, most recently in May 2021, to locate literature about the identified home tests, as were searches of Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Studies were included if they were performed at home or if subjects self-tested at study sites. Samples were collected by a parent or guardian for patients under 18 years of age. Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) for the clinical diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus was evaluated.

RESULTS

Limited data have been published for these home tests given that they are available through EUAs that do not require clinical trials. Fifteen studies were located from searching the literature, but only 2 met the inclusion criteria. Review of the home tests' websites yielded a single study for each test, with the 3 BinaxNOW platforms using the same study for their EUAs. The 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs as of May 7, 2021, include 3 molecular tests and 6 antigen tests. These tests had similar performance on the basis of PPA ranging from 83.5% to 97.4% and NPA ranging from 97% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

The 9 SARS-CoV-2 home tests demonstrated satisfactory performance in comparison with laboratory real time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction tests. The convenience and ease of use of these tests make them well-suited for home-based rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Emerging biosensing technologies for improved diagnostics of COVID-19 and future pandemics

Diagnostic tools play significant roles in the fight against COVID-19 and other pandemics. Existing tests, such as RT-qPCR, have limitations including long assay time, low throughput, inadequate sensitivity, and suboptimal portability. Emerging biosensing technologies hold the promise to develop tests that are rapid, highly sensitive, and suitable for point-of-care testing, which could significantly facilitate the testing of COVID-19. Despite that, practical applications of such biosensors in pandemics have yet to be achieved. In this review, we consolidate the newly developed diagnostic tools for COVID-19 using emerging biosensing technologies and discuss their application promise. In particular, we present nucleic acid tests and antibody tests of COVID-19 based on both conventional and emerging biosensing methods. We then provide perspectives on the existing challenges and potential solutions.

Disinfection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from N95 respirators with ozone: a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Personal protective equipment shortages require the reuse of N95 respirators. We sought the necessary conditions for ozone to disinfect N95 respirators for reuse and the effects of multiple cycles of exposure.

METHODS

Portions of 3M 1870 N95 respirators were exposed to ozone at 400 ppm with 80% humidity for 2 hours to determine effectiveness of ozone on killing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Entire 3M 1870 N95 respirators were exposed to five cycles of 400 ppm with 80% or higher humidity for 2 hours then evaluated for ozone's effects on airflow resistance, filtration efficiency, strap strength and quantitative fit.

RESULTS

Ozone exposure disinfected 3M 1870 N95 respirators heavily inoculated with P. aeruginosa. Ozone exposure did not negatively affect the airflow resistance, filtration efficiency, strap strength or fit of the 3M 1870 N95 respirator.

DISCUSSION

These results suggest that ozone is a feasible strategy to disinfect N95 respirators for reuse during this and future pandemics.