[Biology and pathology of coronaviruses]

BCG and SARS-CoV-2-What Have We Learned?

Despite controversy over the protective effect of the BCG (Bacille Calmette-Guérin) vaccine in preventing pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in adults, it has been used worldwide since 1921. Although the first reports in the 1930s had noted a remarkable decrease in child mortality after BCG immunization, this could not be explained solely by a decrease in mortality from TB. These observations gave rise to the suggestion of nonspecific beneficial effects of BCG vaccination, beyond the desired protection against M. tuberculosis. The existence of an innate immunity-training mechanism based on epigenetic changes was demonstrated several years ago. The emergence of the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in 2019 revived the debate about whether the BCG vaccine can affect the immune response against the virus or other unrelated pathogens. Due to the mortality of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), it is important to verify each factor that may have a potential protective value against the severe course of COVID-19, complications, and death. This paper reviews the results of numerous retrospective studies and prospective trials which shed light on the potential of a century-old vaccine to mitigate the pandemic impact of the new virus. It should be noted, however, that although there are numerous studies intending to verify the hypothesis that the BCG vaccine may have a beneficial effect on COVID-19, there is no definitive evidence on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.

Detection methods for SARS-CoV-2 in tissue

BACKGROUND

Analyses for the presence of SARS-CoV‑2 in the tissues of COVID-19 patients is important in order to improve our understanding of the disease pathophysiology for interpretation of diagnostic histopathological findings in autopsies, biopsies, or surgical specimens and to assess the potential for occupational infectious hazard.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this review we identified 136 published studies in PubMed's curated literature database LitCovid on SARS-CoV‑2 detection methods in tissues and evaluated them regarding sources of error, specificity, and sensitivity of the methods, taking into account our own experience.

RESULTS

Currently, no sufficiently specific histomorphological alterations or diagnostic features for COVID-19 are known. Therefore, three approaches for SARS-CoV‑2 detection are used: RNA, proteins/antigens, or morphological detection by electron microscopy. In the preanalytical phase, the dominant source of error is tissue quality, especially the different intervals between sample collection and processing or fixation (and its duration) and specifically the interval between death and sample collection in autopsies. However, this information is found in less than half of the studies (e.g., in only 42% of autopsy studies). Our own experience and first studies prove the significantly higher sensitivity and specificity of RNA-based detection methods compared to antigen or protein detection by immunohistochemistry or immunofluorescence. Detection by electron microscopy is time consuming and difficult to interpret.

CONCLUSIONS

Different methods are available for the detection of SARS-CoV‑2 in tissue. Currently, RNA detection by RT-PCR is the method of choice. However, extensive validation studies and method harmonization are not available and are absolutely necessary.

[Methods of SARS-CoV-2 detection in tissue]

BACKGROUND

Analyses for the presence of SARS-CoV‑2 in the tissues of COVID-19 patients is important in order to improve our understanding of the disease pathophysiology for interpretation of diagnostic histopathological findings in autopsies, biopsies, or surgical specimens and to assess the potential for occupational infectious hazard.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this review we identified 136 published studies in PubMed's curated literature database LitCovid on SARS-CoV‑2 detection methods in tissues and evaluated them regarding sources of error, specificity, and sensitivity of the methods, taking into account our own experience.

RESULTS

Currently, no sufficiently specific histomorphological alterations or diagnostic features for COVID-19 are known. Therefore, three approaches for SARS-CoV‑2 detection are used: RNA, proteins/antigens, or morphological detection by electron microscopy. In the preanalytical phase, the dominant source of error is tissue quality, especially the different intervals between sample collection and processing or fixation (and its duration) and specifically the interval between death and sample collection in autopsies. However, this information is found in less than half of the studies (e.g., in only 42% of autopsy studies). Our own experience and first studies prove the significantly higher sensitivity and specificity of RNA-based detection methods compared to antigen or protein detection by immunohistochemistry or immunofluorescence. Detection by electron microscopy is time consuming and difficult to interpret.

CONCLUSIONS

Different methods are available for the detection of SARS-CoV‑2 in tissue. Currently, RNA detection by RT-PCR is the method of choice. However, extensive validation studies and method harmonization are not available and are absolutely necessary.