SARS-CoV-2 infection serology: a useful tool to overcome lockdown?

A SARS-CoV-2 minimum data standard to support national serology reporting

BACKGROUND

Healthcare laboratory systems produce and capture a vast array of information, yet do not always report all of this to the national infrastructure within the United Kingdom. The global COVID-19 pandemic brought about a much greater need for detailed healthcare data, one such instance being laboratory testing data. The reporting of qualitative laboratory test results (e.g. positive, negative or indeterminate) provides a basic understanding of levels of seropositivity. However, to better understand and interpret seropositivity, how it is determined and other factors that affect its calculation (i.e. levels of antibodies), quantitative laboratory test data are needed.

METHOD

36 data attributes were collected from 3 NHS laboratories and 29 CO-CONNECT project partner organisations. These were assessed against the need for a minimum dataset to determine data attribute importance. An NHS laboratory feasibility study was undertaken to assess the minimum data standard, together with a literature review of national and international data standards and healthcare reports.

RESULTS

A COVID serology minimum data standard (CSMDS) comprising 12 data attributes was created and verified by 3 NHS laboratories to allow national granular reporting of COVID serology results. To support this, a standardised set of vocabulary terms was developed to represent laboratory analyser systems and laboratory information management systems.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper puts forward a minimum viable standard for COVID-19 serology data attributes to enhance its granularity and augment the national reporting of COVID-19 serology laboratory results, with implications for future pandemics.

Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal IgG mass fraction by isotope dilution mass spectrometry

The availability of serology assays to measure antibodies against the SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) expanded rapidly during the Covid-19 pandemic. The interchangeable use of such assays to monitor disease progression and immune protection requires their standardization, for which suitably characterized monoclonal antibody materials can be useful. The methods, based on isotope dilution mass spectrometry, to value assign the mass fraction of such a material in solution within the context of an international interlaboratory comparison study (CCQM-P216) are described. The mass fraction in solution of a humanized IgG monoclonal antibody (mAb) against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein in the study sample has been value assigned through a combination of liquid chromatography, isotope dilution mass spectrometry (LC-ID-MS) methods and size exclusion chromatography with UV detection (SEC-UV). The former were developed for the quantification of amino acids and proteotypic peptides as surrogate analytes of the mAb while the latter was applied for the determination of the relative monomeric mass fraction. High-resolution mass spectrometry (hrMS) allowed the molecular weight evaluation and ruled out the presence of significant impurities. Method trueness was assessed using a subclass homologous IgG1 material value assigned by amino acid analysis. The assigned mass fraction of monomeric SARS-CoV-2 IgG in solution was 390 ± 16 mg/g. The associated expanded uncertainty originated mainly from acid hydrolysis variability and Trypsin/Lys-C digestion variability and efficiency.

Multidimensional futuristic approaches to address the pandemics beyond COVID-19

Globally, the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been enormous and unrelenting with ∼6.9 million deaths and ∼765 million infections. This review mainly focuses on the recent advances and potentially novel molecular tools for viral diagnostics and therapeutics with far-reaching implications in managing the future pandemics. In addition to briefly highlighting the existing and recent methods of viral diagnostics, we propose a couple of potentially novel non-PCR-based methods for rapid, cost-effective, and single-step detection of nucleic acids of viruses using RNA mimics of green fluorescent protein (GFP) and nuclease-based approaches. We also highlight key innovations in miniaturized Lab-on-Chip (LoC) devices, which in combination with cyber-physical systems, could serve as ideal futuristic platforms for viral diagnosis and disease management. We also discuss underexplored and underutilized antiviral strategies, including ribozyme-mediated RNA-cleaving tools for targeting viral RNA, and recent advances in plant-based platforms for rapid, low-cost, and large-scale production and oral delivery of antiviral agents/vaccines. Lastly, we propose repurposing of the existing vaccines for newer applications with a major emphasis on Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-based vaccine engineering.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.

SEARCH METHODS

The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Validation of a Novel Fluorescent Lateral Flow Assay for Rapid Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Total Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD Binding Antibody Units (BAU) from Plasma or Fingerstick Whole-Blood of COVID-19 Vaccinees

Background: Limited commercial LFA assays are available to provide a reliable quantitative measurement of the total binding antibody units (BAU/mL) against the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S-RBD). Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the fluorescence LFA FinecareTM 2019-nCoV S-RBD test along with its reader (Model No.: FS-113) against the following reference methods: (i) the FDA-approved GenScript surrogate virus-neutralizing assay (sVNT); and (ii) three highly performing automated immunoassays: BioMérieux VIDAS®3, Ortho VITROS®, and Mindray CL-900i®. Methods: Plasma from 488 vaccinees was tested by all aforementioned assays. Fingerstick whole-blood samples from 156 vaccinees were also tested by FinecareTM. Results and conclusions: FinecareTM showed 100% specificity, as none of the pre-pandemic samples tested positive. Equivalent FinecareTM results were observed among the samples taken from fingerstick or plasma (Pearson correlation r = 0.9, p < 0.0001), suggesting that fingerstick samples are sufficient to quantitate the S-RBD BAU/mL. A moderate correlation was observed between FinecareTM and sVNT (r = 0.5, p < 0.0001), indicating that FinecareTM can be used for rapid prediction of the neutralizing antibody (nAb) post-vaccination. FinecareTM BAU results showed strong correlation with VIDAS®3 (r = 0.6, p < 0.0001) and moderate correlation with VITROS® (r = 0.5, p < 0.0001) and CL-900i® (r = 0.4, p < 0.0001), suggesting that FinecareTM can be used as a surrogate for the advanced automated assays to measure S-RBD BAU/mL.

Infection Rate of Respiratory Viruses in the Pandemic SARS-CoV-2 Period Considering Symptomatic Patients: Two Years of Ongoing Observations

BACKGROUND

In the last two years, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has determined radical changes in human behaviors and lifestyles, with a drastic reduction in socialization due to physical distancing and self-isolation. These changes have also been reflected in the epidemiological patterns of common respiratory viruses. For this reason, early discrimination of respiratory viruses is important as new variants emerge.

METHODS

Nasopharyngeal swabs of 2554 patients, with clinically suspected Acute Respiratory Infections (ARIs) from October 2019 to November 2021, were collected to detect 1 or more of the 23 common respiratory pathogens, especially viruses, via BioFilmArray RP2.1plus, including SARS-CoV-2. Demographical characteristics and epidemiological analyses were performed as well as a laboratory features profile of positive patients.

RESULTS

An observational study on 2300 patients (254 patients were excluded because of missing data) including 1560 men and 760 women, median age of 64.5 years, was carried out. Considering the respiratory virus research request, most of the patients were admitted to the Emergency Medicine Department (41.2%, of patients), whereas 29.5% were admitted to the Infectious Diseases Department. The most frequently detected pathogens included SARS-CoV-2 (31.06%, 707/2300, from March 2020 to November 2021), InfA-B (1.86%, 43/2300), HCoV (2.17% 50/2300), and HSRV (1.65%, 38/2300). Interestingly, coinfection rates decreased dramatically in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period. The significative decrease in positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 was associated with the massive vaccination.

CONCLUSION

This study represents a dynamic picture of the epidemiological curve of common respiratory viruses during the two years of pandemic, with a disregarded trend for additional viruses. Our results showed that SARS-CoV-2 had a preferential tropism for the respiratory tract without co-existing with other viruses. The possible causes were attributable either to the use of masks, social isolation, or to specific respiratory receptors mostly available for this virus, external and internal lifestyle factors, vaccination campaigns, and emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The role of neutralizing antibodies by sVNT after two doses of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of Italian healthcare workers

OBJECTIVES

Evaluating anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels is a current priority to drive immunization, as well as to predict when a vaccine booster dose may be required and for which priority groups. The aim of our study was to investigate the kinetics of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike S1 protein IgG (anti-S1 IgG) antibodies and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in an Italian cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs), following the Pfizer/BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, over a period of up to six months after the second dose.

METHODS

We enrolled 57 HCWs, without clinical history of COVID-19 infection. Fluoroenzyme-immunoassay was used for the quantitative anti-S1 IgG antibodies at different time points T1 (one month), T3 (three months) and T6 (six months) following the second vaccine shot. Simultaneously, a commercial surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was used for the determination of NAbs, expressed as inhibition percentage (% IH).

RESULTS

Median values of anti-S1 IgG antibodies decreased from T1 (1,452 BAU/mL) to T6 (104 BAU/mL) with a percent variation of 92.8% while the sVNT showed a percent variation of 34.3% for the same time frame. The decline in anti-S1 IgG antibodies from T1 to T6 was not accompanied by a loss of the neutralizing capacity of antibodies. In fact at T6 a neutralization percentage <20% IH was observed only in 3.51% of HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal that the decrease of anti-S1 IgG levels do not correspond in parallel to a decrease of NAbs over time, which highlights the necessity of using both assays to assess vaccination effectiveness.

Ultrasensitive detection of salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in individuals with natural and COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity

We assessed the feasibility of a highly sensitive immunoassay method based on single molecule array (Simoa) technology to detect IgG and IgA antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) in saliva from individuals with natural or vaccine-induced COVID-19 immunity. The performance of the method was compared to a laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 RBD total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Paired serum and saliva specimens were collected from individuals (n = 40) prior to and 2 weeks after receiving an initial prime COVID-19 vaccine dose (Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna mRNA-1273). Saliva was collected using a commercially available collection device (OraSure Inc.) and SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies were measured by an indirect ELISA using concentrated saliva samples and a Simoa immunoassay using unconcentrated saliva samples. The IgG results were compared with paired serum specimens that were analyzed for total RBD antibodies using the ELISA method. The analytical sensitivity of the saliva-based Simoa immunoassay was five orders of magnitude higher than the ELISA assay: 0.24 pg/mL compared to 15 ng/mL. The diagnostic sensitivity of the saliva ELISA method was 90% (95% CI 76.3-97.2%) compared to 91.7% (95% CI 77.5-98.2%) for the Simoa immunoassay without total IgG-normalization and 100% (95% CI 90.3-100%) for the Simoa immunoassay after total IgG-normalization when compared to the serum ELISA assay. When analyzed using the SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibody ELISA, the average relative increase in antibody index (AI) between the saliva of the post- and pre-vaccinated individuals was 8.7 (AIpost/pre). An average relative increase of 431 pg/mL was observed when the unconcentrated saliva specimens were analyzed using the Simoa immunoassay (SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgGpost/pre). These findings support the suitability of concentrated saliva specimens for the measurement of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies via ELISA, and unconcentrated saliva specimens for the measurement of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG and IgA using an ultrasensitive Simoa immunoassay.

Virus MIP-composites for SARS-CoV-2 detection in the aquatic environment

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus responsible for causing the global COVID-19 pandemic. Identifying the presence of this virus in the environment could potentially improve the effectiveness of disease control measures. Environmental SARS-CoV-2 monitoring may become increasingly demanded in areas where the available testing methods are ineffective. In this study, we present an electrochemical polymer composites biosensor for measuring SARS-CoV-2 whole-virus particles in the environment. The sensitized layer was prepared from molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) composites of inactivated SARS-CoV-2. Testing demonstrated increased sensor signaling with SARS-CoV-2 specifically, while lower responses were observed to the negative controls, H5N1 influenza A virus and non-imprinted polymers (NIPs). This sensor detected SARS-CoV-2 at concentrations as low as 0.1 fM in buffer and samples prepared from reservoir water with a 3 log-scale linearity.

Sensitivity and specificity of 14 SARS-CoV-2 serological assays and their diagnostic potential in RT-PCR negative COVID-19 infections

Background: Molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples is the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis but it has a long turnaround time and struggles to detect low viral loads. Serology could help to diagnose suspected cases which lack molecular confirmation. Two case reports are presented as illustration.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of several commercial assays for COVID-19 serology. We illustrated the added value of COVID-19 serology testing in suspect COVID-19 cases with negative molecular test.

Study design: Twenty-three sera from 7 patients with a confirmed molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were tested using 14 commercial assays. Additionally, 10 pre-pandemic sera and 9 potentially cross-reactive sera were selected. We calculated sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, we discuss the diagnostic relevance of COVID-19 serology in a retrospective cohort of 145 COVID-19 cases in which repetitive molecular and serological SARS-CoV-2 tests were applied.

Results: The interpretation of the pooled sensitivity of IgM/A and IgG resulted in the highest values (range 14–71% on day 2–7; 88–94% on day 8–18). Overall, the specificity of the assays was high (range 79–100%). Among 145 retrospective cases, 3 cases (2%) remained negative after sequential molecular testing but positive on final SARS-CoV-2 serology.

Conclusion: Sensitivity of COVID-19 serological diagnosis was variable but consistently increased at >7 days after symptom onset. Specificity was high. Our data suggest that serology can complement molecular testing for diagnosis of COVID-19, especially for patients presenting the 2^nd week after symptom onset or later.

Challenges in Diagnosis and Clinical Management of COVID-19 in Patient with B-Cell Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): Report of One Case

We report here a case of a patient affected by B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) that developed COVID-19 during the actual SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. The coexistence of CLL and COVID-19 raises many questions regarding the possible increased risk of developing COVID-19 among patients with CLL, the problems in managing therapies for both diseases and, above all, the difficulties in diagnosing COVID-19 in patients affected by CLL. In our patient, an 84-year-old man, the recognition of COVID-19 was delayed because of its atypical clinical presentation and technical problems related to the methods used for the diagnosis. Based on the symptoms and the radiological aspect of the lung, the occurrence of COVID-19 was suspected. Repeated tests on oro/nasopharyngeal swabs gave negative results, causing a delay in the diagnosis. Moreover, different methods used to identify the SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum gave conflicting results, and only two tests were able to identify SARS-CoV-2 Abs of the IgG type. During the clinical course of unrecognized COVID-19, our patient developed severe complications and did not receive any specific treatment for the two diseases. Recognition of COVID-19 in patients with CLL is a challenging task and the most accurate methods are necessary to overcome the diagnostic difficulties encountered.

Comparative study of six SARS-CoV-2 serology assays: Diagnostic performance and antibody dynamics in a cohort of hospitalized patients for moderate to critical COVID-19

BACKGROUND

To overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, serology assays are needed to identify past and ongoing infections. In this context, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of 6 immunoassays on samples from hospitalized patients for moderate to critical COVID-19.

METHODS

701 serum samples obtained from 443 COVID-19 patients (G1: 356 positive RT-PCR patients and G2: 87 negative RT-PCR cases) and 108 pre-pandemic sera from blood donors were tested with 6 commercial immunoassays: (1) Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Roche (Nucleocapsid, N), (2) Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S, Roche (Spike, S), (3) Vidas SARS-COV-2 IgM/IgG, BioMérieux (S), (4) SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Abbott (N), (5) Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Beckman Coulter (Receptor Binding Domain), and (6) Standard F COVID-19 IgM/IgG Combo FIA, SD Biosensor (N).

RESULTS

Global sensitivities of the evaluated assays were as follows: (1) Roche anti-N = 74.5% [69.6-79.3], (2) Roche anti-S = 92.7% [84.7-100], (3) Vidas IgM = 74.9% [68.6-81.2], (4) Vidas IgG = 73.9% [67.6-80.1], (5) Abbott = 78.6% [63.4-93.8], (6) Beckman Coulter = 74.5% [62-86.9], (7) SD Biosensor IgM = 73.1% [61-85.1], and (8) SD Biosensor IgG = 76.9% [65.4-88.4]. Sensitivities increased gradually from week 1 to week 3 as follow: (1) Roche anti-N: 63.3%, 81% and 82.1%; (2) Vidas IgM: 68.2%, 83.2% and 85.9%; and (3) Vidas IgG: 66.7%, 79.1% and 86.6%. All immunoassays showed a specificity of 100%. Seropositivity was significantly associated with a higher frequency of critical COVID-19 (50.8% vs. 38.2%), p = 0.018, OR [95% CI] = 1.668 [1.09-2.553]. Inversely, death occurred more frequently in seronegative patients (28.7% vs. 13.6%), p=3.02 E-4, OR [95% CI] = 0.392 [0.233-0.658].

CONCLUSION

Evaluated serology assays exhibited good sensitivities and excellent specificities. Sensitivities increased gradually after symptoms onset. Even if seropositivity is more frequent in patients with critical COVID-19, it may predict a recovery outcome.

Combined anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgG, and IgM Detection as a Better Strategy to Prevent Second Infection Spreading Waves

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is challenging many health, economic, and social systems. RT-PCR assays are diagnosis gold standard; however, they can lead to false-negative results. Therefore, anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgM, and IgA investigation can play a complementary role in assessing the individuals immune status. Majority of serological tests focus on IgM and IgG although IgA are the main immunoglobulins involved in mucosal immunity. It has been reported that digestive symptoms may occur in the absence of any typical respiratory symptom. Thus, a complete screening, comprising IgA, IgM, and IgG detection could be more consistent and useful in patients with atypical symptoms or in paucisymptomatic cases. Current literature describes over 200 immunoassays available worldwide, pointing out a great results variability, depending on methodology or antigens' nature. In our study we evaluated anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM, and IgG trend on a control group and on two COVID-19 patient groups (early and late infection time) with a lateral-flow combined immunoassay (LFIA) and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Dissimilar antibodies time kinetics have been described in COVID-19 (decreasing IgM concentration with IgA/IgG persistence for a longer time; as well as persistent IgA, IgG, and IgM concentration); our results confirmed both of them depending on the methodology; therefore, it is difficult to compare different studies outcomes, suggesting the importance of a serological tests international standardization. Nevertheless, we propose a flowchart with combined anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM/IgA detection as a screening on general population, where serological positivity should be considered as an "alert," to avoid and contain possible new outbreaks.

Humoral immunological kinetics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and diagnostic performance of serological assays for coronavirus disease 2019: an analysis of global reports

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to rise and second waves are reported in some countries, serological test kits and strips are being considered to scale up an adequate laboratory response. This study provides an update on the kinetics of humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and performance characteristics of serological protocols (lateral flow assay [LFA], chemiluminescence immunoassay [CLIA] and ELISA) used for evaluations of recent and past SARS-CoV-2 infection. A thorough and comprehensive review of suitable and eligible full-text articles was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Wordometer and medRxiv from 10 January to 16 July 2020. These articles were searched using the Medical Subject Headings terms 'COVID-19', 'Serological assay', 'Laboratory Diagnosis', 'Performance characteristics', 'POCT', 'LFA', 'CLIA', 'ELISA' and 'SARS-CoV-2'. Data from original research articles on SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection ≥second day postinfection were included in this study. In total, there were 7938 published articles on humoral immune response and laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19. Of these, 74 were included in this study. The detection, peak and decline period of blood anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgG and total antibodies for point-of-care testing (POCT), ELISA and CLIA vary widely. The most promising of these assays for POCT detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 at day 3 postinfection and peaked on the 15th day; ELISA products detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG at days 2 and 6 then peaked on the eighth day; and the most promising CLIA product detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 at day 1 and peaked on the 30th day. The most promising LFA, ELISA and CLIA that had the best performance characteristics were those targeting total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies followed by those targeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG then IgM. Essentially, the CLIA-based SARS-CoV-2 tests had the best performance characteristics, followed by ELISA then POCT. Given the varied performance characteristics of all the serological assays, there is a need to continuously improve their detection thresholds, as well as to monitor and re-evaluate their performances to assure their significance and applicability for COVID-19 clinical and epidemiological purposes.

Performance and usefulness of a novel automated immunoassay HISCL SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay kit for the diagnosis of COVID-19

Here, we aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a novel automated immunoassay HISCL SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay kit designed to detect the nucleocapsid (N) protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This kit comprises automated chemiluminescence detection systems. Western blot analysis confirmed that anti-SARS-CoV antibodies detected SARS-CoV-2N proteins. The best cut-off index was determined, and clinical performance was tested using 115 nasopharyngeal swab samples obtained from 46 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 69 individuals who tested negative for COVID-19 through reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). The HISCL Antigen assay kit showed a sensitivity of 95.4% and 16.6% in samples with copy numbers > 100 and < 99, respectively. The kit did not cross-react with human coronaviruses causing seasonal common cold and influenza, and none of the 69 individuals without COVID-19 were diagnosed with positive results. Importantly, 81.8% of the samples with low virus load (< 50 copy numbers) were diagnosed as negative. Thus, using HISCL antigen assay kits may reduce overdiagnosis compared with RT-qPCR tests. The rapid and high-throughput HISCL SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay kit developed here proved suitable for screening infectious COVID-19 and may help control the pandemic.

Electrochemical Capillary-Flow Immunoassay for Detecting Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein Antibodies at the Point of Care

Rapid and inexpensive serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are needed to conduct population-level seroprevalence surveillance studies and can improve diagnostic reliability when used in combination with viral tests. Here, we report a novel low-cost electrochemical capillary-flow device to quantify IgG antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid proteins (anti-N antibody) down to 5 ng/mL in low-volume (10 μL) human whole blood samples in under 20 min. No sample preparation is needed as the device integrates a blood-filtration membrane for on-board plasma extraction. The device is made of stacked layers of a hydrophilic polyester and double-sided adhesive films, which create a passive microfluidic circuit that automates the steps of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The sample and reagents are sequentially delivered to a nitrocellulose membrane that is modified with a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. When present in the sample, anti-N antibodies are captured on the nitrocellulose membrane and detected via chronoamperometry performed on a screen-printed carbon electrode. As a result of this quantitative electrochemical readout, no result interpretation is required, making the device ideal for point-of-care (POC) use by non-trained users. Moreover, we show that the device can be coupled to a near-field communication potentiostat operated from a smartphone, confirming its true POC potential. The novelty of this work resides in the integration of sensitive electrochemical detection with capillary-flow immunoassay, providing accuracy at the point of care. This novel electrochemical capillary-flow device has the potential to aid the diagnosis of infectious diseases at the point of care.

Serological Assays for Assessing Postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response

Serological assays for measuring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies have crucial applications in the control and surveillance of the current COVID-19 pandemic. A large number of such assays have been developed and are now commercially available. However, there are limited studies evaluating the performance of these tests. We evaluated the performances of the following six commercially available serological assays for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: (i) Genscript cPass surrogate virus neutralization test (Genscript cPass), (ii) Diasorin-SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG detection (Diasorin-S1/S2 IgG), (iii) Alinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG II (Alinity IgG II), (iv) Diasorin-SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG (Diasorin-TrimericS IgG), (v) Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2-cobas (Roche Elecsys), and (vi) AESKU enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (AESKULISA). The results of these tests were compared against the gold standard plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Roche Elecsys had the highest sensitivity, and the Genscript cPass had the highest specificity. Diasorin-TrimericS IgG had the best overall performance with the highest agreement with the PRNT results. Parallel testing of Genscript cPass with Diasorin-TrimericS IgG and Diasorin-S1/S2 IgG had the optimum performance. Based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, lowering the cutoff from 30% to 20% in the Genscript cPass significantly increased the sensitivity and the overall agreement with the PRNT results. Commercially available serological assays are good alternatives to the standard PRNT. However, further studies on larger sample numbers are required for optimization of the assay cutoff values and for evaluation of cost effectiveness. IMPORTANCE Commercial serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are now widely available. This study adds new knowledge regarding the optimization of these assays for evaluating postvaccination antibodies status. It highlights the positive and negative aspects of each assay in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, compared to the gold standard neutralization test. When using serological assays to assess postvaccine immune status, a balance of all parameters needs to be considered and not simply the high specificity. This balance is particularly relevant in the current situation where countries are aiming to mass vaccinate their populations and bring this pandemic under control. Assays with good sensitivity will have a lower percentage of false negatives and thus provide confidence for vaccination. Understanding the strengths and limitations of commercially available serological assays is important, not only for better application of these tests but also to understand the immune response and the duration of protection postvaccination.

The WHO International Standard for COVID-19 serological tests: towards harmonization of anti-spike assays

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays are relevant in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, providing valuable data on the immunization status of the population. However, current serology tests are highly variable, due to their different characteristics and to the lack of reference materials. The aim of the World Health Organization (WHO) first International Standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin is to harmonize humoral immune response assessment after natural infection or vaccination, and recommend reporting the results for binding activity in Binding Antibody Units (BAU).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study analyzed six commercial quantitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-protein assays in a head-to-head comparison, using the manufacturers' conversion factors for the WHO IS to obtain BAU/mL values.

RESULTS

Our data showed good alignment up to 1000 BAU/mL, then began to disperse, exhibiting some discrepancies. Moreover, correlations among methods varied with Cohen's Kappa ranging from 0.580 to 1.00, with the lowest agreement values for kits using different target antigens or different antibody isotypes, making it clear that the laboratory report should include this information. Values expressed as BAU/ml showed a reduced between-assays variability compared to AU/ml (median coefficients of variation 0.38 and 0.68, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

On the basis of these data at present anti-SARS CoV-2 serological assays' results are not interchangeable, and, more importantly, individual immune monitoring should be performed with the same method.

The COVID-19 pandemic: viral variants and vaccine efficacy

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has prompted the scientific community and the pharmaceutical companies to put maximum efforts into developing vaccines to contain the spread of this disease. Presently, many vaccines have been developed and authorized for use in human beings in different countries. In particular, in Europe to date, the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized. All of them are based on a version of the spike (S) glycoprotein characterized at the beginning of the pandemic. However, they differ by their level of efficacy against COVID-19. SARS-COV-2, like other RNA viruses, mutates continually. Genome sequencing analysis shows a nucleotide substitution rate of about 1 × 10^-3 substitutions per year that leads to the emergence of variants through point mutations, insertions, deletions and recombination. There is concern about the ability of the current vaccines to protect against emerging viral variants. Mutations in the S-glycoprotein may affect transmission dynamics and the risk of immune escape. In this review, we address the different technological platforms in use for developing COVID-19 vaccines, the impact of emerging viral variants on virus transmission, hospitalization, and response to current vaccines, as well as rare but important adverse reactions to them. Finally, different methods for measuring antibody response to the vaccines, including the importance of using the WHO International Standard to calibrate immunoassays accurately to an arbitrary unit, to reduce interlaboratory variation and to create a common language for reporting results, are reported.

Rapid antibody diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 adaptive immune response

The emergence of a pandemic scale respiratory illness (COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019) and the lack of the world's readiness to prevent its spread resulted in an unprecedented rise of biomedical diagnostic industries, as they took lead to provide efficient diagnostic solutions for COVID-19. However, these circumstances also led to numerous emergency use authorizations without appropriate evaluation that compromised standards, which could result in a larger than usual number of false-positive or false-negative results, leading to unwanted ambiguity in already confusing realities of the pandemic-hit closures of the world economy. This review is aimed at comparing the claimed or reported clinical sensitivity and clinical specificity of commercially available rapid antibody diagnostics with independently evaluated clinical performance results of the tests. Thereby, we not only present the types of modern antibody diagnostics and their working principles but summarize their experimental evaluations and observed clinical efficiencies to highlight the research, development, and commercialization issues with future challenges. Still, it must be emphasized that the serological or antibody tests do not serve the purpose of early diagnosis but are more suitable for epidemiology and screening populaces with an active immune response, recognizing convalescent plasma donors, and determining vaccine efficacy.

Low level of plasminogen increases risk for mortality in COVID-19 patients

The pathophysiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and especially of its complications is still not fully understood. In fact, a very high number of patients with COVID-19 die because of thromboembolic causes. A role of plasminogen, as precursor of fibrinolysis, has been hypothesized. In this study, we aimed to investigate the association between plasminogen levels and COVID-19-related outcomes in a population of 55 infected Caucasian patients (mean age: 69.8 ± 14.3, 41.8% female). Low levels of plasminogen were significantly associated with inflammatory markers (CRP, PCT, and IL-6), markers of coagulation (D-dimer, INR, and APTT), and markers of organ dysfunctions (high fasting blood glucose and decrease in the glomerular filtration rate). A multidimensional analysis model, including the correlation of the expression of coagulation with inflammatory parameters, indicated that plasminogen tended to cluster together with IL-6, hence suggesting a common pathway of activation during disease's complication. Moreover, low levels of plasminogen strongly correlated with mortality in COVID-19 patients even after multiple adjustments for presence of confounding. These data suggest that plasminogen may play a pivotal role in controlling the complex mechanisms beyond the COVID-19 complications, and may be useful both as biomarker for prognosis and for therapeutic target against this extremely aggressive infection.

Epidemiology of SARS-CoV2 in Qatar's primary care population aged 10 years and above

BACKGROUND

There is an urgent need to elucidate the epidemiology of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) and characterize its potential impact. Investing in characterising the SARS-CoV2 will help plan and improve the response to the pandemic. Furthermore, it will help identify the most efficient ways of managing the pandemic, avoiding public health policies and interventions that may be unduly restrictive of normal activity or unnecessarily costly. This paper describes the design and reports findings of a population based epidemiological study undertaken to characterise SARS-CoV2 in Qatar using limited resources in a timely manner.

METHODS

Asymptomatic individuals ≥10 years registered with Qatar's publicly funded primary health provider were eligible. A stratified random sampling technique was utilized to identify the study sample. Participants were invited to an appointment where they completed a questionnaire and provided samples for polymerase chain reaction and Immunoglobulin M and G immunoassay tests. Data collected were analyzed to calculate point and period prevalence by sociodemographic, lifestyle and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 18,918 individuals invited for the study, 2084 participated (response rate 10.8%). The overall point prevalence and period prevalence were estimated to be 1.6% (95% CI 1.1-2.2) and 14.6% (95% CI 13.1-16.2) respectively. Period prevalence of SARS-CoV2 infection was not considerably different across age groups (9.7-19.8%). It was higher in males compared to females (16.2 and 12.7% respectively). A significant variation was observed by nationality (7.1 to 22.2%) and municipalities (6.9-35.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides an example of a methodologically robust approach that can be undertaken in a timely manner with limited resources. It reports much-needed epidemiological data about the spread of SARS-CoV2. Given the low prevalence rates, majority of the population in Qatar remains susceptible. Enhanced surveillance must continue to be in place, particularly due to the large number of asymptomatic cases observed. Robust contact tracing and social distancing measures are key to prevent future outbreaks.

Analytic comparison between three high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays reveals minor discrepancies in a high-incidence population

Performance of three automated commercial serological IgG-based assays was investigated for assessing SARS-CoV-2 "ever" (past or current) infection in a population-based sample in a high exposure setting. PCR and serological testing was performed on 394 individuals. SARS-CoV-2-IgG seroprevalence was 42.9% (95% CI 38.1-47.8%), 40.6% (95% CI 35.9-45.5%), and 42.4% (95% CI 37.6-47.3%) using the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. Between the three assays, overall, positive, and negative percent agreements ranged between 93.2-95.7%, 89.3-92.8%, and 93.8-97.8%, respectively; Cohen's kappa statistic ranged from 0.86 to 0.91; and 35 specimens (8.9%) showed discordant results. Among all individuals, 12.5% (95% CI 9.6-16.1%) had current infection, as assessed by PCR. Of these, only 34.7% (95% CI 22.9-48.7%) were seropositive by at least one assay. A total of 216 individuals (54.8%; 95% CI 49.9-59.7%) had evidence of ever infection using antibody testing and/or PCR during or prior to this study. Of these, only 78.2%, 74.1%, and 77.3% were seropositive in the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. All three assays had comparable performance and excellent agreement, but missed at least 20% of individuals with past or current infection. Commercial antibody assays can substantially underestimate ever infection, more so when infection rates are high.

Performance characteristics of five SARS-CoV-2 serological assays: Clinical utility in health-care workers

STUDY OBJECTIVE

SARS-CoV-2, which causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19), continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality. The diagnosis of acute infection relies on reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based viral detection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the optimal serological testing strategy for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies which provides an important indicator of prior infection and potential short-term immunity.

METHODS

The sensitivity and specificity of four different ELISA assays (Euroimmun IgG, Euroimmun NCP-IgG, Fortress and DIAsource) and one CLIA assay (Roche ELECSYS) were evaluated in 423 samples; 137 patients with confirmed RT-PCR COVID-19 infection (true positives), and 100 pre-pandemic samples collected prior to October 2019 (true negatives). A further 186 samples were collected from health-care staff and analysed by all five assays.

RESULTS

The Fortress ELISA assay demonstrated the highest sensitivity and specificity followed by the Roche ECLIA assay. The highest overall sensitivity came from the assays that measured total antibody (IgM-IgG combined) and the three assays that performed the best (Fortress, Roche, Euroimmun IgG) all have different antigens as their target proteins which suggests that antigen target does not affect assay performance. In mildly symptomatic participants with either a negative RT-PCR or no RT-PCR performed, 16.76% had detectable antibodies suggesting previous infection.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend a combined testing strategy utilizing assays with different antigenic targets using the fully automated Roche ECLIA assay and confirming discordant samples with the Fortress Total Antibody ELISA assay. This study provides an important indicator of prior infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

Epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentations, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19: a review of current evidence

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a public health crisis, infected millions of people, and caused a significant number of deaths. SARS-CoV-2 transmits from person to person through several routes, mainly via respiratory droplets, which makes it difficult to contain its spread into the community. Here, we provide an overview of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19.

AREAS COVERED

Direct person-to-person respiratory transmission has rapidly amplified the spread of coronavirus. In the absence of any clinically proven treatment options, the current clinical management of COVID-19 includes symptom management, infection prevention and control measures, optimized supportive care, and intensive care support in severe or critical illness. Developing an effective vaccine is now a leading research priority. Some vaccines have already been approved by the regulatory authorities for the prevention of COVID-19.

EXPERT OPINION

General prevention and protection measures regarding the containment and management of the second or third waves are necessary to minimize the risk of infection. Until now, four vaccines reported variable efficacies of between 62-95%, and two of them (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna) received FDA emergency use authorization. Equitable access and effective distribution of these vaccines in all countries will save millions of lives.

Biological characteristics and biomarkers of novel SARS-CoV-2 facilitated rapid development and implementation of diagnostic tools and surveillance measures

Existing coronavirus named as a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has speeded its spread across the globe immediately after emergence in China, Wuhan region, at the end of the year 2019. Different techniques, including genome sequencing, structural feature classification by electron microscopy, and chest imaging using computed tomography, are primarily used to diagnose and screen SARS-CoV-2 suspected individuals. Determination of the viral structure, surface proteins, and genome sequence has provided a design blueprint for the diagnostic investigations of novel SARS-CoV-2 virus and rapidly emerging diagnostic technologies, vaccine trials, and cell-entry-inhibiting drugs. Here, we describe recent understandings on the spike glycoprotein (S protein), receptor-binding domain (RBD), and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and their receptor complex. This report also aims to review recently established diagnostic technologies and developments in surveillance measures for SARS-CoV-2 as well as the characteristics and performance of emerging techniques. Smartphone apps for contact tracing can help nations to conduct surveillance measures before a vaccine and effective medicines become available. We also describe promising point-of-care (POC) diagnostic technologies that are under consideration by researchers for advancement beyond the proof-of-concept stage. Developing novel diagnostic techniques needs to be facilitated to establish automatic systems, without any personal involvement or arrangement to curb an existing SARS-CoV-2 epidemic crisis, and could also be appropriate for avoiding the emergence of a future epidemic crisis.

Landscape of humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19 disease and the value of antibody testing

A new pandemic is ongoing in several parts of the world. The agent responsible is the newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The symptoms associated with this virus are known as the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this review, we summarize the published data on virus specific antibodies in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 disease, patients recovered from the disease and the individuals who are asymptomatic with SARS-CoV-2 infections. The review highlights the following: i) an adjunct role of antibody tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in combination with RT-PCR; ii) status of antibodies from COVID-19 convalescent patients to select donors for plasma therapy; iii) the potential confounding effects of other coronaviruses, measles, mumps and rubella in antibody testing due to homology of certain viral genes; and iv) the role of antibody testing for conducting surveillance in populations, incidence estimation, contact tracing and epidemiologic studies.

COVID-19 Antibody Tests and Their Limitations

COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has developed into a global health crisis, causing over 2 million deaths and changing people's daily life the world over. Current main-stream diagnostic methods in the laboratory include nucleic acid PCR tests and direct viral antigen tests for detecting active infections, and indirect human antibody tests specific to SARS-CoV-2 to detect prior exposure. In this Perspective, we briefly describe the PCR and antigen tests and then focus mainly on existing antibody tests and their limitations including inaccuracies and possible causes of unreliability. False negatives in antibody immunoassays can arise from assay formats, selection of viral antigens and antibody types, diagnostic testing windows, individual variance, and fluctuation in antibody levels. Reasons for false positives in antibody immunoassays mainly involve antibody cross-reactivity from other viruses, as well as autoimmune disease. The spectrum bias has an effect on both the false negatives and false positives. For assay developers, not only improvement of assay formats but also selection of viral antigens and isotopes of human antibodies need to be carefully considered to improve sensitivity and specificity. For clinicians, the factors influencing the accuracy of assays must be kept in mind to test patients using currently imperfect but available tests with smart tactics and realistic interpretation of the test results.

Molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 being challenged by virus variation and asymptomatic infection

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a pandemic for more than a year. With the expanding second wave of the pandemic in winter, the continuous evolution of SARS-CoV-2 has brought new issues, including the significance of virus mutations in infection and the detection of asymptomatic infection. In this review, we first introduced several major SARS-CoV-2 mutations since the COVID-19 outbreak and then mentioned the widely used molecular detection techniques to diagnose COVID-19, primarily focusing on their strengths and limitations. We further discussed the effects of viral genetic variation and asymptomatic infection on the molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The review finally summarized useful insights into the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 under the special situation being challenged by virus mutation and asymptomatic infection.

•

The widely used molecular diagnostic techniques for COVID-19 are reviewed, with a special focus on their strengths and limitations.

•

The genetic variation of the viral genome and silent asymptomatic infection during the global battle against the nCoV epidemic are discussed.

•

Some diagnosis strategies for those within the quarantine period at home or the assembly site are recommended.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and the COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency: The Importance of Diagnostic Methods

Background

Currently, a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is underway, resulting in high morbidity and mortality across the globe.

Summary

A prompt and effective diagnosis is crucial to identify infected individuals, to monitor the infection, to perform contact tracing, and to limit the spread of the virus. Since the announcement of this public health emergency, several diagnostic methods have been developed including molecular and serological assays, and more recently biosensors. Here, we present the use of these assays as well as their main technical features, advantages, and limits.

Key Messages

The development of reliable diagnostic assays is crucial not only for a correct diagnosis and containment of COVID-19 pandemic, but also for the decision-making process that is behind the clinical decisions, eventually contributing to the improvement of patient management. Furthermore, with the advent of vaccine and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, serological assays will be instrumental for the validation of these new therapeutic options.

Rapid point-of-care testing for COVID-19: quality of supportive information for lateral flow serology assays

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of evidence addressing several important human factors questions pertaining to the quality of supportive information provided by commercial manufacturers that can affect the adoption and use of lateral flow serology assays in practice. We aimed to: (1) identify and assess the quality of information that commercial manufacturers provided for their point-of-care tests (POCTs) and (2) examine the implications of these findings on real-world settings.

DESIGN

We used a content analysis methodology in two stages to systematically, code and analyse textual data from documents of commercial manufacturers. A deductive approach was applied using a coding guide based on the validated Point-of-Care Key Evidence Tool (POCKET) multidimensional checklist. An inductive approach was used to identify new patterns or themes generated from our textual analysis.

SETTING

Publicly available supportive information documents by commercial manufacturers for lateral flow serology, were identified and gathered from online searches.

PARTICIPANTS

Supportive information documents retrieved from online searches over 3 months (March 2020 to June 2020).

RESULTS

A total of 79 POCTs were identified that met the study inclusion criteria. Using the POCKET coding guide, we found that the quality of information varied significantly between the manufacturers and was often lacking in detail. Our inductive approach further examined these topics and found that several statements were vague and that significant variations in the level of details existed between manufacturers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed significant concerns surrounding the supportive information reported by manufacturers for lateral flow serology assays. Information transparency was poor and human factor issues were not properly addressed to mitigate the risk of improper device use, although it should be noted that the results of our study are limited by the data that manufactures were prepared to disclose. Overall, commercial manufacturers should improve the quality and value of information presented in their supporting documentation.

Towards Quantitative and Standardized Serological and Neutralization Assays for COVID-19

Quantitative and robust serology assays are critical measurements underpinning global COVID-19 response to diagnostic, surveillance, and vaccine development. Here, we report a proof-of-concept approach for the development of quantitative, multiplexed flow cytometry-based serological and neutralization assays. The serology assays test the IgG and IgM against both the full-length spike antigens and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike antigen. Benchmarking against an RBD-specific SARS-CoV IgG reference standard, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD antibody titer was quantified in the range of 37.6 µg/mL to 31.0 ng/mL. The quantitative assays are highly specific with no correlative cross-reactivity with the spike proteins of MERS, SARS1, OC43 and HKU1 viruses. We further demonstrated good correlation between anti-RBD antibody titers and neutralizing antibody titers. The suite of serology and neutralization assays help to improve measurement confidence and are complementary and foundational for clinical and epidemiologic studies.

Serological assays and host antibody detection in coronavirus-related disease diagnosis

Coronaviruses (CoV) are a family of viral pathogens that infect both birds and mammals, including humans. Seven human coronaviruses (HCoV) have been recognized so far. HCoV-229E, -OC43, -NL63, and -HKU1 account for one-third of common colds with mild symptoms. The other three members are severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2. These viruses are responsible for SARS, MERS, and CoV disease 2019 (COVID-19), respectively. A variety of diagnostic techniques, including chest X-rays, computer tomography (CT) scans, analysis of viral nucleic acids, proteins, or whole virions, and host antibody detection using serological assays have been developed for the detection of these viruses. In this review, we discuss conventional serological tests, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), western blot (WB), immunofluorescence assay (IFA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), as well as biosensor-based assays that have been developed for diagnosing HCoV-associated diseases since 2003, with an in-depth focus on COVID-19.

Evaluation of a new simultaneous anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM and IgG screening automated assay based on native inactivated virus

In addition to molecular testing, there is evolving interest for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies serologic assays. Majority of them focus on IgM/IgG despite IgA important role in mucosal immunity. A simultaneous anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA/IgG/IgM immunoassay, performed on an automated instrument by ELISA kit coated with native inactivated SARS-CoV-2, was detected on two control groups (negative swab healthcare workers; pre-pandemic healthy or with other viral infections individuals) and on two COVID-19 patient groups (early and late infection). Specificities were 100% in all groups, indicating no cross-reactivity with other infectious or pre-pandemic sera. Sensitivities were 94% in early infection group and 97% in total positive patient group, reaching 100% in late infection group. To our knowledge, this is the first technique based on native SARS-CoV-2. It is able to identify more positive samples than kits using recombinant antigens, therefore virus native epitopes as well as simultaneous anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA/IgM/IgG detection could help to contain COVID-19 spreading.

Seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the extent of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and the factors associated with seroprevalence across a diverse cohort of healthcare workers.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study of healthcare workers, including SARS-CoV-2 serology testing and participant questionnaires.

SETTINGS

A multisite healthcare delivery system located in Los Angeles County.

PARTICIPANTS

A diverse and unselected population of adults (n=6062) employed in a multisite healthcare delivery system located in Los Angeles County, including individuals with direct patient contact and others with non-patient-oriented work functions.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Using Bayesian and multivariate analyses, we estimated seroprevalence and factors associated with seropositivity and antibody levels, including pre-existing demographic and clinical characteristics; potential COVID-19 illness-related exposures; and symptoms consistent with COVID-19 infection.

RESULTS

We observed a seroprevalence rate of 4.1%, with anosmia as the most prominently associated self-reported symptom (OR 11.04, p<0.001) in addition to fever (OR 2.02, p=0.002) and myalgias (OR 1.65, p=0.035). After adjusting for potential confounders, seroprevalence was also associated with Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.98, p=0.001) and African-American race (OR 2.02, p=0.027) as well as contact with a COVID-19-diagnosed individual in the household (OR 5.73, p<0.001) or clinical work setting (OR 1.76, p=0.002). Importantly, African-American race and Hispanic ethnicity were associated with antibody positivity even after adjusting for personal COVID-19 diagnosis status, suggesting the contribution of unmeasured structural or societal factors.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The demographic factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among our healthcare workers underscore the importance of exposure sources beyond the workplace. The size and diversity of our study population, combined with robust survey and modelling techniques, provide a vibrant picture of the demographic factors, exposures and symptoms that can identify individuals with susceptibility as well as potential to mount an immune response to COVID-19.

Orthogonal immunoassays for IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 antigens reveal that immune response lasts beyond 4 mo post illness onset

Immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the current pandemic remains a field of immense interest and active research worldwide. Although the severity of acute infection may depend on the intensity of innate and adaptive immunity, leading to higher morbidity and mortality, the longevity of IgG antibodies, including neutralizing activity to SARS-CoV-2, is viewed as a key correlate of immune protection. Amid reports and concern that there is a rapid decay of IgG antibody levels within 1 mo to 2 mo after acute infection, we set out to study the pattern and duration of IgG antibody response to various SARS-CoV-2 antigens in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in a community setting. Herein, we show the correlation of IgG anti-spike protein S1 subunit, receptor binding domain, nucleocapsid, and virus neutralizing antibody titers with each other and with clinical features such as length and severity of COVID-19 illness. More importantly, using orthogonal measurements, we found the IgG titers to persist for more than 4 mo post symptom onset, implying that long-lasting immunity to COVID-19 from infection or vaccination might be observed, as seen with other coronaviruses such as SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome.

Strategies to exiting the COVID-19 lockdown for workplace and school: A scoping review

In an attempt to curb the COVID-19 pandemic, several countries have implemented various social restrictions, such as closing schools and asking people to work from home. Nevertheless, after months of strict quarantine, a reopening of society is required. Many countries are planning exit strategies to progressively lift the lockdown without leading to an increase in the number of COVID-19 cases. Identifying exit strategies for a safe reopening of schools and places of work is critical in informing decision-makers on the management of the COVID-19 health crisis. This scoping review describes multiple population-wide strategies, including social distancing, testing, and contact tracing. It highlights how each strategy needs to be based on both the epidemiological situation and contextualize at local circumstances to anticipate the possibility of COVID-19 resurgence. However, the retrieved evidence lacks operational solutions and are mainly based on mathematical models and derived from grey literature. There is a need to report the impact of the implementation of country-tailored strategies and assess their effectiveness through high-quality experimental studies.

Clinical validation of a second generation anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM automated chemiluminescent immunoassay

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection has proven to be extremely contagious and has spread rapidly all over the world. A key aspect in limiting the virus diffusion is to ensure early and accurate diagnosis. Serological assays could be an alternative in increasing testing capabilities, particularly when used as part of an algorithmic approach combined with molecular analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a second generation chemiluminescent automated immunoassay able to detect anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies. Data are carried out on healthy subjects and other infectious diseases pre‐pandemic sera, as controls, and on two different coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patient groups (early and late infection time). Data obtained have been analyzed in terms of precision, linearity, sensitivity and specificity. Specificities are: 100% for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and 98% for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM, in all patient groups. Sensitivities are: 97%, 100%, and 98% for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and 87%, 83%, and 86% for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM in the early infection, in the late infection and in the total patient group, respectively. The Mindray anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and IgM assays demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity, indicating that IgG and IgM simultaneous detection is useful even in the early phases of infection.

Diagnostic Efficiency of Three Fully Automated Serology Assays and Their Correlation with a Novel Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-COV-2 Individuals

To support the deployment of serology assays for population screening during the COVID-19 pandemic, we compared the performance of three fully automated SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays: Mindray CL-900i® (target: spike [S] and nucleocapsid [N]), BioMérieux VIDAS®3 (target: receptor-binding domain [RBD]) and Diasorin LIAISON®XL (target: S1 and S2 subunits). A total of 111 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR- positive samples collected at ≥ 21 days post symptom onset, and 127 pre-pandemic control samples were included. Diagnostic performance was assessed in correlation to RT-PCR and a surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT). Moreover, cross-reactivity with other viral antibodies was investigated. Compared to RT-PCR, LIAISON®XL showed the highest overall specificity (100%), followed by VIDAS®3 (98.4%) and CL-900i® (95.3%). The highest sensitivity was demonstrated by CL-900i® (90.1%), followed by VIDAS®3 (88.3%) and LIAISON®XL (85.6%). The sensitivity of all assays was higher in symptomatic patients (91.1-98.2%) compared to asymptomatic patients (78.4-80.4%). In correlation to sVNT, all assays showed excellent sensitivities (92.2-96.1%). In addition, VIDAS®3 demonstrated the best correlation (r = 0.75) with the sVNT. The present study provides insights on the performance of three fully automated assays, which could help diagnostic laboratories in the choice of a particular assay according to the intended use.

Clinical applications of detecting IgG, IgM or IgA antibody for the diagnosis of COVID-19: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating impact worldwide, and timely detection and quarantine of infected patients are critical to prevent spread of disease. Serological antibody testing is an important diagnostic method used increasingly in clinics, although its clinical application is still under investigation.

Methods

A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the diagnostic performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody tests in patients with COVID-19. The test results analysed included: (1) IgM-positive but IgG-negative (IgM⁺IgG⁻); (2) IgG-positive but IgM-negative (IgG⁺IgM⁻); (3) both IgM-positive and IgG-positive (IgM⁺IgG⁺); (4) IgM-positive without IgG information (IgM⁺IgG^+/−); (5) IgG-positive without IgM information (IgG⁺IgM^+/−); (6) either IgM-positive or IgG-positive (IgM⁺ or IgG⁺); and (7) IgA-positive (IgA⁺).

Results

Sixty-eight studies were included. Pooled sensitivities for IgM⁺IgG⁻, IgG⁺IgM⁻, IgM⁺IgG⁺, IgM⁺IgG^+/−, IgG⁺IgM^+/−, and IgM⁺ or IgG⁺ were 6%, 7%, 53%, 68%, 73% and 79% respectively. Pooled specificities ranged from 98% to 100%. IgA⁺ had a pooled sensitivity of 78% but a relatively low specificity of 88%. Tests conducted 2 weeks after symptom onset showed better diagnostic accuracy than tests conducted earlier. Chemiluminescence immunoassay and detection of S protein as the antigen could offer more accurate diagnostic results.

Discussion

These findings support the supplemental role of serological antibody tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, their capacity to diagnose COVID-19 early in the disease course could be limited.

Recent Developments on Therapeutic and Diagnostic Approaches for COVID-19

The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has made a serious public health threat worldwide with millions of people at risk in a growing number of countries. Though there are no clinically approved antiviral drugs and vaccines for COVID-19, attempts are ongoing for clinical trials of several known antiviral drugs, their combination, as well as development of vaccines in patients with confirmed COVID-19. This review focuses on the latest approaches to diagnostics and therapy of COVID-19. We have summarized recent progress on the conventional therapeutics such as antiviral drugs, vaccines, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody treatments, and convalescent plasma therapy which are currently under extensive research and clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19. The developments of nanoparticle-based therapeutic and diagnostic approaches have been also discussed for COVID-19. We have assessed recent literature data on this topic and made a summary of current development and future perspectives.

The potential of electrochemistry for the detection of coronavirus-induced infections

Human coronaviruses (HCoV) are no stranger to the global environment. The etiology of previous outbreaks with reported symptoms of respiratory tract infections was attributed to different coronavirus strains, with the latest global pandemic in 2019 also belonging to the coronavirus family. Timely detection, effective therapeutics and future prevention are stake key holders in the management of coronavirus-induced infections. Apart from the gold standard clinical diagnostics, electrochemical techniques have also demonstrated their great potentials in the detection of different viruses and their correlated antibodies and antigens, showing high sensitivities and selectivities, and faster times for the analysis. This article aims to critically review the multifaceted electrochemical approaches, not only in the development of point-of-care portable devices but also as alternative detection strategies that can be coupled with traditional methods for the detection of various strains of coronaviruses.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies in District Srinagar, northern India - A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection provides essential information for deciding disease prevention and mitigation measures. We estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies in District Srinagar.

METHODS

2906 persons >18 years of age selected from hospital visitors across District Srinagar participated in the study. We tested samples for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies using a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay-based serologic test.

RESULTS

Age- and gender-standardized seroprevalence was 3.6% (95% CI 2.9% to 4.3%). Age 30-69 years, a recent history of symptoms of an influenza-like-illness, and a history of being placed under quarantine were significantly related to higher odds of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies. The estimated number of SARS-CoV-2 infections during the two weeks preceding the study, adjusted for test performance, was 32602 with an estimated (median) infection-to-known-case ratio of 46 (95% CI 36 to 57).

CONCLUSIONS

The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies is low in the District. A large proportion of the population is still susceptible to the infection. A sizeable number of infections remain undetected, and a substantial proportion of people with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 are not tested.

Molecular diagnosis of COVID-19: Current situation and trend in China (Review)

COVID-19 is caused by a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV or SARS-CoV-2) and has become a global public health emergency. Rapid and accurate molecular diagnostic technologies are crucial for the screening, isolation, treatment, prevention and control of COVID-19. Currently, nucleic acid detection-based techniques and rapid diagnostic tests that detect antigens or antibodies specific to 2019-nCoV infections are the primary diagnostic tools. China National Medical Products Administration has opened a special channel for approval of new pharmaceuticals owing to urgent clinical needs, with 18 nucleic acid detection kits, 11 protein detection kits and 1 sequencing-related equipment and supporting software having been approved until April 23, 2020. The current review summarizes the application situation, advantages, disadvantages and associated technology improvement trends of molecular diagnostics for COVID-19 in China, identifies knowledge gaps and indicates future priorities for research in this field. The most effective way to prevent and control COVID-19 is early detection, diagnosis, isolation and treatment. In the clinical application of molecular diagnosis technology, it is necessary to combine pathogenic microbiology, immunology and other associated detection technologies, advocate the combination of multiple technologies, determine how they complement each other, enhance practicability and improve the ability of rapid and accurate diagnosis and differential diagnosis of COVID-19.

Weak correlation between antibody titers and neutralizing activity in sera from SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects

Plenty of serologic tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed so far, thus documenting the importance of evaluating the relevant features of the immune response to this viral agent. The performance of these assays is currently under investigation. Amongst them, LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG by DiaSorin and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 cobas® by Roche are currently used by laboratory medicine hospital departments in Italy and many other countries. In the present study, we firstly compared two serologic tests on serum samples collected at two different time points from 46 laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) subjects. Secondly, 85 negative serum samples collected before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were analyzed. Thirdly, possible correlations between antibody levels and the resulting neutralizing activity against a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2 were evaluated. Results revealed that both tests are endowed with low sensitivity on the day of hospital admission, which increased to 97.8% and 100% for samples collected after 15 days for DiaSorin and Roche tests, respectively. The specificity evaluated for the two tests ranges from 96.5% to 100%, respectively. Importantly, a poor direct correlation between antibody titers and neutralizing activity levels was evidenced in the present study. These data further shed light on both potentials and possible limitations related to SARS-CoV-2 serology. In this context, great efforts are still necessary for investigating antibody kinetics to develop novel diagnostic algorithms. Moreover, further investigations on the role of neutralizing antibodies and their correlate of protection will be of paramount importance for the development of effective vaccines.

SARS-CoV-2 infection serology validation of different methods: Usefulness of IgA in the early phase of infection

•

Validation of different serological methods for the determination of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

•

Usefulness of IgAs in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

•

Significant difference in the detection rate of IgM and IgA.

•

IgGs showed stable level after 10 days from symptoms onset.

Background and aims

A novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was isolated from the respiratory samples of patients with pneumonia as showed by the sequence analysis of the virus genomes obtained in Wuhan, China. The antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 is not well understood yet, but the availability of sensitive and specific serological assays will be crucial for the early diagnosis of infection, for epidemiological studies and for defining the presence of neutralizing antibodies in response to a possible vaccine.

Materials and methods

We tested and compared the performances of one chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA).

Results

The ECLIA serological assay performed best and may be a valid screening method for SARS-COV-2 infection. The IgA detected by the ELISA assay might be a more reliable and stable early serological marker than IgM. Instead, IgGs, as expected, showed stable level after 10 days from symptoms onset.

Conclusion

The ECLIA method could be used as screening test, considering both the excellent performance and the cost per single test; while ELISA assay for IgG and IgA, which are present at a higher level than IgM and last longer, might be used as confirmatory test.

Genomic diversity and evolution, diagnosis, prevention, and therapeutics of the pandemic COVID-19 disease

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is a highly transmittable and pathogenic viral infection caused by a novel evolutionarily divergent RNA virus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The virus first emerged in Wuhan, China in December 2019, and subsequently spreaded around the world. Genomic analyses revealed that this zoonotic virus may be evolved naturally but not a purposefully manipulated laboratory construct. However, currently available data are not sufficient to precisely conclude the origin of this fearsome virus. Comprehensive annotations of the whole-genomes revealed hundreds of nucleotides, and amino acids mutations, substitutions and/or deletions at different positions of the ever changing SARS-CoV-2 genome. The spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 possesses a functional polybasic (furin) cleavage site at the S1-S2 boundary through the insertion of 12 nucleotides. It leads to the predicted acquisition of 3-O-linked glycan around the cleavage site. Although real-time RT-PCR methods targeting specific gene(s) have widely been used to diagnose the COVID-19 patients, however, recently developed more convenient, cheap, rapid, and specific diagnostic tools targeting antigens or CRISPR-Cas-mediated method or a newly developed plug and play method should be available for the resource-poor developing countries. A large number of candidate drugs, vaccines and therapies have shown great promise in early trials, however, these candidates of preventive or therapeutic agents have to pass a long path of trials before being released for the practical application against COVID-19. This review updates current knowledge on origin, genomic evolution, development of the diagnostic tools, and the preventive or therapeutic remedies of the COVID-19. We also discussed the future scopes for research, effective management, and surveillance of the newly emerged COVID-19 disease.

Chest CT for rapid triage of patients in multiple emergency departments during COVID-19 epidemic: experience report from a large French university hospital

Objectives

To assess the diagnostic performances of chest CT for triage of patients in multiple emergency departments during COVID-19 epidemic, in comparison with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.

Method

From March 3 to April 4, 2020, 694 consecutive patients from three emergency departments of a large university hospital, for which a hospitalization was planned whatever the reasons, i.e., COVID- or non-COVID-related, underwent a chest CT and one or several RT-PCR tests. Chest CTs were rated as “Surely COVID+,” “Possible COVID+,” or “COVID−” by experienced radiologists. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using the final RT-PCR test as standard of reference. The delays for CT reports and RT-PCR results were recorded and compared.

Results

Among the 694 patients, 287 were positive on the final RT-PCR exam. Concerning the 694 chest CT, 308 were rated as “Surely COVID+”, 34 as “Possible COVID+,” and 352 as “COVID−.” When considering only the “Surely COVID+” CT as positive, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV reached 88.9%, 90.2%, 88%, 84.1%, and 92.7%, respectively, with respect to final RT-PCR test. The mean delay for CT reports was three times shorter than for RT-PCR results (187 ± 148 min versus 573 ± 327 min, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

During COVID-19 epidemic phase, chest CT is a rapid and most probably an adequately reliable tool to refer patients requiring hospitalization to the COVID+ or COVID− hospital units, when response times for virological tests are too long.

Key Points

• In a large university hospital in Lyon, France, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of chest CT for COVID-19 reached 88.9%, 90.2%, 88%, 84.1%, and 92.7%, respectively, using RT-PCR as standard of reference.

• The mean delay for CT reports was three times shorter than for RT-PCR results (187 ± 148 min versus 573 ± 327 min, p < 0.0001).

• Due to high accuracy of chest CT for COVID-19 and shorter time for CT reports than RT-PCR results, chest CT can be used to orient patients suspected to be positive towards the COVID+ unit to decrease congestion in the emergency departments.