Comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of five commercial COVID-19 qRT PCR kits used in India

Evaluation of self-collected nasal, urine, and saliva samples for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 using an EUA approved RT-PCR assay and a laboratory developed LAMP SARS-CoV-2 test

As the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread throughout the world, millions of positive cases of COVID-19 were registered and, even though there are millions of people already vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, a large part of the global population remains vulnerable to contracting the virus. Massive nasopharyngeal sample collection in Puerto Rico at the beginning of the pandemic was limited by the scarcity of trained personnel and testing sites. To increase SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing availability, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected nasal, saliva, and urine samples using the TaqPath reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) COVID-19 kit to detect SARS-CoV-2. We also created a colorimetric loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) laboratory developed test (LDT) to detect SARS-CoV-2, as another strategy to increase the availability of molecular testing in community-based laboratories. Automated RNA extraction was performed in the KingFisher Flex instrument, followed by PCR quantification of SARS-CoV-2 on the 7500 Fast Dx RT-PCR using the TaqPath RT-PCR COVID-19 molecular test. Data was interpreted by the COVID-19 Interpretive Software from Applied Biosystems and statistically analyzed with Cohen's kappa coefficient (k). Cohen's kappa coefficient (k) for paired nasal and saliva samples showed moderate agreement (0.52). Saliva samples exhibited a higher viral load. We also observed 90% concordance between LifeGene-Biomarks' SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Colorimetric LAMP LDT and the TaqPath RT-PCR COVID-19 test. Our results suggest that self-collected saliva is superior to nasal and urine samples for COVID-19 testing. The results also suggest that the colorimetric LAMP LDT is a rapid alternative to RT-PCR tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. This test can be easily implemented in clinics, hospitals, the workplace, and at home; optimizing the surveillance and collection process, which helps mitigate global public health and socioeconomic upheaval caused by airborne pandemics.

Baseline findings of a multicentric ambispective cohort study (2021-2022) among hospitalised mucormycosis patients in India

In India, the incidence of mucormycosis reached high levels during 2021-2022, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to this, we established a multicentric ambispective cohort of patients hospitalised with mucormycosis across India. In this paper, we report their baseline profile, clinical characteristics and outcomes at discharge. Patients hospitalized for mucormycosis during March-July 2021 were included. Mucormycosis was diagnosed based on mycological confirmation on direct microscopy (KOH/Calcofluor white stain), culture, histopathology, or supportive evidence from endoscopy or imaging. After consent, trained data collectors used medical records and telephonic interviews to capture data in a pre-tested structured questionnaire. At baseline, we recruited 686 patients from 26 study hospitals, of whom 72.3% were males, 78% had a prior history of diabetes, 53.2% had a history of corticosteroid treatment, and 80% were associated with COVID-19. Pain, numbness or swelling of the face were the commonest symptoms (73.3%). Liposomal Amphotericin B was the commonest drug formulation used (67.1%), and endoscopic sinus surgery was the most common surgical procedure (73.6%). At discharge, the disease was stable in 43.3%, in regression for 29.9% but 9.6% died during hospitalization. Among survivors, commonly reported disabilities included facial disfigurement (18.4%) and difficulties in chewing/swallowing (17.8%). Though the risk of mortality was only 1 in 10, the disability due to the disease was very high. This cohort study could enhance our understanding of the disease's clinical progression and help frame standard treatment guidelines.

The Diagnostic Performance of Various Clinical Specimens for the Detection of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of RT-PCR Studies

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic performance of numerous clinical specimens to diagnose COVID-19 through RT-PCR techniques is very important, and the test result outcome is still unclear. This review aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of clinical samples for COVID-19 detection by RT-PCR through a systematic literature review process.

METHODOLOGY

A compressive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2022. A snowball search on Google, Google Scholar, Research Gate, and MedRxiv, as well as bibliographic research, was performed to identify any other relevant articles. Observational studies that assessed the clinical usefulness of the RT-PCR technique in different human samples for the detection or screening of COVID-19 among patients or patient samples were considered for this review. The primary outcomes considered were sensitivity and specificity, while parameters such as positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and kappa coefficient were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 85 studies out of 10,213 non-duplicate records were included for the systematic review, of which 69 articles were considered for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated better pooled sensitivity with the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) than saliva (91.06% vs. 76.70%) and was comparable with the combined NPS/oropharyngeal swab (OPS; 92%). Nevertheless, specificity was observed to be better with saliva (98.27%) than the combined NPS/OPS (98.08%) and NPS (95.57%). The other parameters were comparable among different samples. The respiratory samples and throat samples showed a promising result relative to other specimens. The sensitivity and specificity of samples such as nasopharyngeal swabs, saliva, combined nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal, respiratory, sputum, broncho aspirate, throat swab, gargle, serum, and the mixed sample were found to be 91.06%, 76.70%, 92.00%, 99.44%, 86%, 96%, 94.4%, 95.3%, 73.63%, and above 98; and 95.57%, 98.27%, 98.08%, 100%, 37%, 100%, 100%, 97.6%, and above 97, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

NPS was observed to have relatively better sensitivity, but not specificity when compared with other clinical specimens. Head-to-head comparisons between the different samples and the time of sample collection are warranted to strengthen this evidence.

Comparative Study on Two COVID-19 Outbreaks at a Long-Term Mental Health Facility in Korea in 2020 and 2022

(1) Background and Objectives: There were two distinct coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks in 2020 and 2022 at a long-term mental health facility (LTMHF) in Gyeonggi Province, Korea. We aimed to compare the two outbreaks and identify differences in epidemiological and clinical outcomes due to changes in epidemic timing and management methods. (2) Materials and Methods: The structural, operational, and case-specific LTMHF data of COVID-19-confirmed patients during these outbreaks in 2020 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. (3) Results: Forty individuals (37 residents) in 2020 and thirty-nine (32 residents) in 2022 were confirmed to have COVID-19, and ten were infected twice. Facility isolation was implemented as an infection control measure, and one COVID-19-related death occurred in 2020. All residents and staff were vaccinated at least twice in 2022; moreover, in 2022, 38 patients (97.4%) received a third vaccination less than months before infection. The average Ct value of the cases in 2022 was significantly higher than that in 2020; however, vaccine-breakthrough (V-BT) and reinfection after vaccination rates were similar. (4) Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination could help lower the viral load of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which was inversely correlated with Ct values, and ventilation system improvements in health facilities might reduce transmissibility.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19

In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to evaluate the reliability of coronavirus disease diagnostic tests in 2019 (COVID-19). This article seeks to describe the scientific discoveries made because of diagnostic tests conducted in recent years during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Between 2020 and 2021, searches for published papers on the COVID-19 diagnostic were made in the PubMed database. Ninety-nine scientific articles that satisfied the requirements were analyzed and included in the meta-analysis, and the specificity and sensitivity of the diagnostic accuracy were assessed. When compared to serological tests such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), molecular tests such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) performed better in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, the area under the curve restricted to the false-positive rates (AUC_FPR) of 0.984 obtained by the antiviral neutralization bioassay (ANB) diagnostic test revealed significant potential for the identification of COVID-19. It has been established that the various diagnostic tests have been effectively adapted for the detection of SARS-CoV-2; nevertheless, their performance still must be enhanced to contain potential COVID-19 outbreaks, which will also help contain potential infectious agent outbreaks in the future.

COVID-19 diagnostics: Molecular biology to nanomaterials

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has claimed around 6.4 million lives worldwide. The disease symptoms range from mild flu-like infection to life-threatening complications. The widespread infection demands rapid, simple, and accurate diagnosis. Currently used methods include molecular biology-based approaches that consist of conventional amplification by RT-PCR, isothermal amplification-based techniques such as RT-LAMP, and gene editing tools like CRISPR-Cas. Other methods include immunological detection including ELISA, lateral flow immunoassay, chemiluminescence, etc. Radiological-based approaches are also being used. Despite good analytical performance of these current methods, there is an unmet need for less costly and simpler tests that may be performed at point of care. Accordingly, nanomaterial-based testing has been extensively pursued. In this review, we discuss the currently used diagnostic techniques for SARS-CoV-2, their usefulness, and limitations. In addition, nanoparticle-based approaches have been highlighted as another potential means of detection. The review provides a deep insight into the current diagnostic methods and future trends to combat this deadly menace.

SARS-CoV-2 variants: Impact on biological and clinical outcome

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that was first identified in December 2019, in Wuhan, China was found to be the etiological agent for a novel respiratory infection that led to a Coronavirus Induced Disease named COVID-19. The disease spread to pandemic magnitudes within a few weeks and since then we have been dealing with several waves across the world, due to the emergence of variants and novel mutations in this RNA virus. A direct outcome of these variants apart from the spike of cases is the diverse disease presentation and difficulty in employing effective diagnostic tools apart from confusing disease outcomes. Transmissibility rates of the variants, host response, and virus evolution are some of the features found to impact COVID-19 disease management. In this review, we will discuss the emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2, notable mutations in the viral genome, the possible impact of these mutations on detection, disease presentation, and management as well as the recent findings in the mechanisms that underlie virus-host interaction. Our aim is to invigorate a scientific debate on how pathogenic potential of the new pandemic viral strains contributes toward development in the field of virology in general and COVID-19 disease in particular.

The Comparative Analysis of Two RT-qPCR Kits for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Reveals a Higher Risk of False-Negative Diagnosis in Samples with High Quantification Cycles for Viral and Internal Genes

The early detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using the real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) as a gold-standard molecular tool has allowed to test and trace the viral spread and the isolation of COVID-19-infected patients. The detection capacity of viral and internal genes is an essential parameter to consider and analyze during the assay. In this study, we analyze the performance of the two commercial RT-qPCR kits used in Chile, TaqMan™ 2019-nCoV Control Kit v1 (Thermo Fisher) and MaxCov19 (TAAG Genetics), for the COVID-19 diagnosis from nasopharyngeal swab samples (NPSs). Our results show a lower sensitivity of the TAAG kit compared to the Thermo Fisher kit, even in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 mutations associated with its variants. This study reinforces the relevance of evaluating the performance of RT-qPCR kits before being used massively since those with lower sensitivity can generate false negatives and produce outbreaks of local infections.