Laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in China: A review of challenging cases and analysis

Comparison of the efficacy of COVID-19 responses in South Korea and the United States

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic devastated many countries worldwide by causing large numbers of fatalities. In our research, we wanted to answer the question: Why was there such a large difference in the mortality rate between South Korea and the United States? This is because many East Asian countries, such as Korea, had a lower mortality rate than many countries, including developed ones, across the world - the mortality rate of South Korea was about five times lower than the United States.

METHODS

This study comprehensively compares strategies used to address the COVID-19 pandemic in two different countries: South Korea and the United States. The various aspects of these two countries' responses are examined, including initial response, information dissemination and public compliance, mitigation strategies, and vaccine rollout and their impacts.

RESULTS

Early and widespread testing, rigorous contact tracing, the clear release of government information, and an organized vaccine rollout powered a proactive approach in South Korea. The United States had a contrasting response consisting of delayed and more decentralized measures, where testing lagged due to varying policies and the political controversies facing vaccine distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

We signify the gravity of rapid response and testing, clear communication, and efficient vaccine distribution, as we believe this could correlate with a lower mortality rate. In addition, we discuss future directions, including the need for a specific health infrastructure and protocol against highly infectious outbreaks.

Detection and identification of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza a based on microfluidic technology

As of now, the global COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, which began in 2019, has been effectively controlled. However, the symptoms of influenza A virus infection were similar to those of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but they required different treatment approaches. To make the detection more accurate and the treatment more targeted. We developed a system that integrates RPA and CRISPR assays, allowing for the rapid, highly specific, and sensitive detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, H1N1, and H3N2. Under isothermal amplification conditions, the RPA-CRISPR Cas12a detection system achieved a detection limit as low as 5 copies per μL, demonstrating excellent specificity. The measurement time was approximately 30 minutes. The RPA-CRISPR Cas12a detection system combined with the microfluidic chip we designed to simultaneously detect three viruses, providing a potential solution for efficient and reliable diagnosis.

Integrated System for On-Site Rapid and Safe Screening of COVID-19

Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the epidemic has been spreading around the world for more than 2 years. Rapid, safe, and on-site detection methods of COVID-19 are in urgent demand for the control of the epidemic. Here, we established an integrated system, which incorporates a machine-learning-based Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy technique for rapid COVID-19 screening and air-plasma-based disinfection modules to prevent potential secondary infections. A partial least-squares discrimination analysis and a convolutional neural network model were built using the collected infrared spectral dataset containing 857 training serum samples. Furthermore, the sensitivity, specificity, and prediction accuracy could all reach over 94% from the results of the field test regarding 968 blind testing samples. Additionally, the disinfection modules achieved an inactivation efficiency of 99.9% for surface and airborne tested bacteria. The proposed system is conducive and promising for point-of-care and on-site COVID-19 screening in the mass population.

SARS-CoV-2 and Plasmodium falciparum Co-Infection in a Returning Traveler

Since December 2019, the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a non-neglectable context for the whole healthcare system. Under the background of COVID-19, the detection and diagnosis of malaria cases are under challenge. Here, we reported a COVID-19 and malaria co-infection traveler who has a long living history in Cameroon. The case was administered with dihydroartemisinin and piperaquine tablets for malaria, Lopinavir and Ritonavir tablets, Arbidol, recombinant human interferon α-2b and Compound Maxing Yifei mixture for COVID-19, and Zolpidem Tartrate tablets, Diazepam, Paroxetine Hydrochloride tablets, Thymosin α1, and Lianhua Qinwen Jiaonang during the second hospitalization of the patient since the patient has a certain level of anxiety and insomnia with no evidence of inflammatory reactions. After being tested negative two times for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 48 h, the patient met China's COVID-19 discharge standards and was discharged with stable vital signs and mental state. Since most countries in the sub-Saharan region have a fragile health system, co-infection for both Plasmodium and SARS-CoV-2 may not be uncommon, and raise a challenge in diagnosis, treatment, and prevention for both diseases. We add to the literature on co-infection of P. falciparum malaria and COVID-19 and offer operational advice on diagnosis, prevention, and treatment for the co-infection.

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among hospitalized patients in China: a case-control study

A lack of confidence on the vaccination drive hinders the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among hospitalized patients in China. This case-control study was based on SARS-CoV-2 sero-surveillance during hospitalization. From April to June 2021, hospitalized patients without documented COVID-19 infection from the Department of Urology were routinely assayed for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccination history of each participant was obtained from their vaccination records. Of the 405 participants, there were 37 seropositive participants (case group) and 368 seronegative participants (control group); 68 participants (16.8%) had received the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, including 54 who received the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine and 14 received the Sinopharm vaccine. All seropositive participants who had received one or two doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were assessed for at least 16 days, while 31 (8.4%) of 368 seronegative controls who had received the vaccine were tested for 1–94 days. The overall seroconversion rate was 54.4% (37/68) in the vaccinated participants who received the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI) for seropositivity was 6.20 (95% CI: 2.05–18.71) in those received full vaccination with two doses versus those partially vaccinated participants with one dose after adjusting for sex and age. These findings imply that the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine could have a protective antibody response.

Immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous ChAdOx1-S and mRNA-1273 vaccinations in healthy adults in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

In Taiwan, the vaccination program started in March 2021, with ChAdOx1-S being the first available WHO-approved COVID-19 vaccine, followed by Moderna vaccine. This study aimed to investigate the immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous prime-boost regimens with ChAdOx1-S and mRNA-1273.

METHODS

From March to November 2021, homologous or heterologous regimens with ChAdOx1-S and mRNA-1273 vaccination (ChAdOx1-S/ChAdOx1-S, mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1-S/mRNA-1273) were given to 945 healthy participants. Serum samples were collected at designated time points. The anti-RBD/S1 antibody titers and neutralizing ability were measured by three different immunoassays: Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany), AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II (Abbott Diagnostics Division, Sligo, Ireland), and cPass™ SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (GenScript, New Jersey, USA).

RESULTS

We found that heterologous vaccination with ChAdOx1-S/mRNA-1273 had an acceptable safety profile and induced higher total anti-RBD/S1 antibody production (p < 0.0001), yet lower anti-RBD/S1 IgG titer (p < 0.0001) and neutralizing ability (p = 0.0101) than mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 group. Both regimens showed higher antibody titers and superior neutralizing abilities than ChAdOx1-S/ChAdOx1-S. An age-dependent antibody response to ChAdOx1-S/mRNA-1273 was shown after both the priming and the booster doses. Younger age was associated with higher antibody production and neutralizing ability.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterologous ChAdOx1-S/mRNA-1273 vaccination regimen is generally safe and induces a robust humoral immune response that is non-inferior to that of mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273.

Recent Progress on Rapid Lateral Flow Assay-Based Early Diagnosis of COVID-19

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in enormous losses worldwide. Through effective control measures and vaccination, prevention and curbing have proven significantly effective; however, the disease has still not been eliminated. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a simple, convenient, and rapid detection strategy for controlling disease recurrence and transmission. Taking advantage of their low-cost and simple operation, point-of-care test (POCT) kits for COVID-19 based on the lateral flow assay (LFA) chemistry have become one of the most convenient and widely used screening tools for pathogens in hospitals and at home. In this review, we introduce essential features of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, compare existing detection methods, and focus on the principles, merits and limitations of the LFAs based on viral nucleic acids, antigens, and corresponding antibodies. A systematic comparison was realized through summarization and analyses, providing a comprehensive demonstration of the LFA technology and insights into preventing and curbing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Analytical and Clinical Performance of Droplet Digital PCR in the Detection and Quantification of SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Since the initial coronavirus disease outbreak in late 2019 (COVID-19), reverse-transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) has become the gold standard test to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, a more sensitive and accurate diagnostic tool was required. Therefore, droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) was suggested as an alternative method. Here, we evaluated the performance of ddPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 and compared it to the performance of RT-qPCR.

METHODS

The analytical performances, including limit of blank and limit of detection, were established using positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 reference materials. A total of 366 RNA extracts (173 positive and 193 negative by RT-qPCR) were collected from four institutions and tested with a Bio-Rad SARS-CoV-2 ddPCR kit that detects the SARS-CoV-2 genome using primers for N1 and N2.

RESULTS

Limit of blank was set at 0, and the limits of detection of N1 and N2 were 1.99 copies/μL and 5.18 copies/μL, respectively. Linearity was evaluated using serial dilution samples, which demonstrated good results (R2: 0.999, linear range: 5.88-6825.25 copies/μL for N1 and R2: 0.999, 5.53-5855.47 copies/μL for N2). The results of ddPCR and RT-qPCR revealed substantial agreement (Cohen's kappa: 0.639, p < 0.01). The 63 samples with positive ddPCR but negative RT-qPCR showed low copy numbers, and 55% of them had COVID-19-related symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction demonstrated excellent sensitivity for SARS-Cov-2 detection and consistently agreed with the results from conventional RT-qPCR. Furthermore, ddPCR provided quantitative data that can be used to monitor changes in the viral load of patients with COVID-19.