Rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 in the first year of the pandemic: A systematic review

Microfluidics as diagnostic tools

The challenges in the management of human diseases are largely determined by the precision, speed and ease of diagnostic procedures available. Developments in biomedical engineering technologies have greatly helped in transforming human health care, especially for disease diagnosis which in turn lead to better patient outcomes. One such development is in the form of microfluidic chip technology which has transformed various aspects of human health care. We present in this review, a comprehensive account on the utility of microfluidic chip technologies for the diagnosis of autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), infectious diseases, and neurodegenerative conditions. We have included the diseases posing global threat such as rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, pernicious anemia, tuberculosis, COVID-19, influenza, alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and epilepsy. Apart from discussing the ways of microfluidic chip in diagnosis, we included a section presenting electrochemical, electrical, optical, and acoustic detection technologies for the precise diagnosis of CVDs. Microfluidics platforms have thus revolutionized novel capabilities in addressing the requirements of point-of-care diagnostics enabling miniaturization by integrating multiple laboratory functions into a single chip resulting in "one flow - one solution" systems. Hence, the precision and early diagnoses of diseases are now possible due to the advancements of microfluidics-based technology.

A higher number of SARS-COV-2 infections in quilombola communities than in the local population in Brazil

The historical and social vulnerability of quilombola communities in Brazil can make them especially fragile in the face of COVID-19, considering that several individuals have precarious health systems and inadequate access to water. This work aimed to characterize the frequency of SARS-COV-2 infections and the presence of IgM and IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in quilombola populations and their relationship with the presence of risk factors or preexisting chronic diseases in the quilombola communities. We analyzed the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, serological status, comorbidities, and symptoms of 1,994 individuals (478 males and 1,536 females) from 18 Brazilian municipalities in the State of Sergipe of quilombola communities, which were evaluated at different epidemiological weeks, starting at the 32nd (August 6th) and ending at the 40th (October 3rd) epidemiological week. More than 70% of studied families live in rural areas and they have an extreme poverty social status. Although we found a higher number of SARS-COV-2 infections in quilombola communities than in the local population, their SARS-CoV-2 reactivity and IgM and IgG positivity varied across the communities investigated. Arterial hypertension was the most risk factor, being found in 27.8% of the individuals (9.5% in stage 1, 10.8% in stage 2, and 7.5% in stage 3). The most common COVID-19 symptoms and comorbidities were headache, runny nose, flu, and dyslipidemia. However, most individuals were asymptomatic (79.9%). Our data indicate that mass testing must be incorporated into public policy to improve the health care system available to quilombola populations during a future pandemic or epidemic.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions for managing SARS-CoV-2

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Initial response strategies to the COVID-19 pandemic were heavily reliant on nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), a set of measures implemented to slow or even stop the spread of infection. Here, we reviewed key measures used during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RECENT FINDINGS

Some NPIs were successful in reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Personal protective measures such as face masks were widely used, and likely had some effect on transmission. The development and production of rapid antigen tests allowed self-diagnosis in the community, informing isolation and quarantine measures. Community-wide measures such as school closures, workplace closures and complete stay-at-home orders were able to reduce contacts and prevent transmission. They were widely used in the pandemic and contributed to reduce transmission in the community; however, there were also negative unintended consequences in the society and economy.

SUMMARY

NPIs slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and are essential for pandemic preparedness and response. Understanding which measures are more effective at reducing transmission with lower costs is imperative.

A Smartphone-Based Platform Assisted by Artificial Intelligence for Reading and Reporting Rapid Diagnostic Tests: Evaluation Study in SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Immunoassays

BACKGROUND

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are being widely used to manage COVID-19 pandemic. However, many results remain unreported or unconfirmed, altering a correct epidemiological surveillance.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate an artificial intelligence-based smartphone app, connected to a cloud web platform, to automatically and objectively read RDT results and assess its impact on COVID-19 pandemic management.

METHODS

Overall, 252 human sera were used to inoculate a total of 1165 RDTs for training and validation purposes. We then conducted two field studies to assess the performance on real-world scenarios by testing 172 antibody RDTs at two nursing homes and 96 antigen RDTs at one hospital emergency department.

RESULTS

Field studies demonstrated high levels of sensitivity (100%) and specificity (94.4%, CI 92.8%-96.1%) for reading IgG band of COVID-19 antibody RDTs compared to visual readings from health workers. Sensitivity of detecting IgM test bands was 100%, and specificity was 95.8% (CI 94.3%-97.3%). All COVID-19 antigen RDTs were correctly read by the app.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed reading system is automatic, reducing variability and uncertainty associated with RDTs interpretation and can be used to read different RDT brands. The web platform serves as a real-time epidemiological tracking tool and facilitates reporting of positive RDTs to relevant health authorities.

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 166,943 suspected COVID-19 patients

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) compared with RT-PCR (reference standard) for SARS-CoV-2, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science for relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality, and quantitative synthesis was conducted using a bivariate random-effects model. The meta-analysis included 135 studies (166,943 samples). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.76 (95%CI: 0.73-0.79), 1.00 (95%CI: 1.00-1.00), 276.1 (95% CI, 184.1-414.1), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.21-0.27), and 1171 (95% CI, 782-1755), respectively. Compared to other sample types, nasal samples had the best RAT sensitivity [0.79 (95%CI: 0.71-0.85)]. The sensitivities of the different RAT kits ranged from 0.41 (95%CI: 0.23-0.61) to 0.90 (95%CI: 0.70-0.97). Sensitivity was markedly better in samples with lower Ct, and RAT achieved excellent pooled sensitivity at 1.00 (95%CI: 0.70-1.00) among samples with Ct < 20. Testing within 10 days of symptom onset resulted in a high sensitivity. For ≤ 3, ≤ 7, and ≤ 10 days, the sensitivities were 0.91 (95%CI: 0.83-0.96), 0.89 (95%CI: 0.84-0.93), and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.83-0.92), respectively. RAT kits show high sensitivity and specificity in early infection, especially when the viral load is high. Moreover, using nasal samples for antigen testing, which are moderately sensitive and patient-friendly, is a reliable alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling. RAT might be effective for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it must be complemented by the careful handling of negative test results.

Update on COVID-19 and Effectiveness of a Vaccination Campaign in a Global Context

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 remains a significant issue for global health, the economy, and society. When SARS-CoV-2 began to spread, the most recent serious infectious disease of this century around the world, with its high morbidity and mortality rates, it is understandable why such infections have generally been spread in the past, mainly from international travel movements. This perspective review aimed to provide an update for clinicians on the recent developments related to the microbiological perspectives in pandemics, diagnostics, prevention (such as the spread of a virus), vaccination campaigns, treatment options, and health consequences for COVID-19 based on the current literature. In this way, the authors attempt to raise awareness on the transversal nature of these challenges by identifying the main risk/vulnerability factors that the scientific community must face including our current knowledge on the virus capacity of the mechanism of entry into the cells, the current classifications of viral variants, the knowledge of the mathematical model on the spread of viruses (the possible routes of transmission), and the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns in a global context of pandemic, particularly from COVID-19, with a look at new or future vaccines.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Detection: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Introduction

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 is time-consuming and sometimes not feasible in developing nations. Rapid antigen test (RAT) could decrease the load of diagnosis. However, the efficacy of RAT is yet to be investigated comprehensively. Thus, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RAT against RT-PCR methods as the reference standard.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE/Pubmed and Embase databases for the relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Diagnostic accuracy measures [i.e., sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and the area under the curve (AUC)] were pooled with a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with Meta-DiSc (Version 1.4, Cochrane Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain).

Results

After reviewing retrieved records, we identified 60 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen tests against the reference test (the real-time PCR) were 69% (95% CI: 68–70) and 99% (95% CI: 99–99). The PLR, NLR, DOR and the AUC estimates were found to be 72 (95% CI: 44–119), 0.30 (95% CI: 0.26–0.36), 316 (95% CI: 167–590) and 97%, respectively.

Conclusion

The present study indicated that using RAT kits is primarily recommended for the early detection of patients suspected of having COVID-19, particularly in countries with limited resources and laboratory equipment. However, the negative RAT samples may need to be confirmed using molecular tests, mainly when the symptoms of COVID-19 are present.

False-positivity results in rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2: an umbrella review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

The rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to the clinical and public health strategies for managing COVID-19. This umbrella review aimed to explore the accuracy and sensitivity of RADTs for SARS-CoV-2 by assessing the incidence of false positivity associated with them.

AREAS COVERED

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the sensitivity and specificity of commercially available RADTs with data on false-positive results were identified by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to March 31, 2022. All meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen tests were included. Data on the author and year, included studies, index tests, sample size, false negatives, false positives, and study quality based on AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) rating were extracted from the included meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

EXPERT OPINION

We identified 12 meta-analyses and systematic review that presented data on the false-positive results in RADTs. The false positivity rates in the included studies ranged from 0.0% - 4.0%. This study summarizes the available evidence on the incidence of false positivity in RADTs and shows it is less than 4.0%. Therefore, our findings imply that RADTs can be an appropriate, economic, and rapid detection method for mass screening of COVID-19.

Usefulness of laboratory parameters and chest CT in the early diagnosis of COVID-19

In the present study, the importance of laboratory parameters and CT findings in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 was investigated. To this end, 245 patients admitted between April 1st, and May 30th, 2020 with suspected COVID-19 were enrolled. The patients were divided into three groups according to chest CT findings and RT-PCR results. The non-COVID-19 group consisted of 71 patients with negative RT-PCR results and no chest CT findings. Ninety-five patients with positive RT-PCR results and negativechest CT findings were included in the COVID-19 group; 79 patients with positive RT-PCR results and chest CT findings consistent with COVID-19 manifestations were included in COVID-19 pneumonia group. Chest CT findings were positive in 45% of all COVID-19 patients. Patients with positive chest CT findings had mild (n=30), moderate (n=21) andor severe (n=28) lung involvement. In the COVID-19 group, CRP levels and the percentage of monocytes increased significantly. As disease progressed from mild to severe, CRP, LDH and ferritin levels gradually increased. In the ROC analysis, the area under the curve corresponding to the percentage value of monocytes (AUC=0.887) had a very good accuracy in predicting COVID-19 cases. The multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that CRP, LYM and % MONO were independent factors for COVID-19. Furthermore, the chest CT evaluation is a relevant tool in patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 pneumonia and negative RT-PCR results. In addition to decreased lymphocyte count, the increased percentage of monocytes may also guide the diagnosis.