Considerations for diagnostic COVID-19 tests.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vandenberg O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7556561 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:As a result of the 2019 novel human coronavirus (COVID-19) global spread, medical examiner/coroner offices will inevitably encounter increased numbers of COVID-19-infected decedents at autopsy. While in some cases a history of fever and/or respiratory distress (eg, cough or shortness of breath) may suggest the diagnosis, epidemiologic studies indicate that the majority of individuals infected with COVID-19 develop mild to no symptoms. Those dying with-but not of-COVID-19 may still be infectious, however. While multiple guidelines have been issued regarding autopsy protocol in cases of suspected COVID-19 deaths, there is some variability in the recommendations. Additionally, limited recommendations to date have been issued regarding scene investigative protocol, and there is a paucity of publications characterizing COVID-19 postmortem gross and histologic findings. A case of sudden unexpected death due to COVID-19 is presented as a means of illustrating common autopsy findings, as well as diagnostic and biosafety considerations. We also review and summarize the current COVID-19 literature in an effort to provide practical evidence-based biosafety guidance for medical examiner-coroner offices encountering COVID-19 at autopsy.
| S-EPMC7202125 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Timely and accurate laboratory testing is essential for managing the global COVID-19 pandemic. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction remains the gold-standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, but several practical issues limit the test's use. Immunoassays have been indicated as an alternative for individual and mass testing.ObjectivesTo access the performance of 12 serological tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.MethodsWe conducted a blind evaluation of six lateral-flow immunoassays (LFIAs) and six enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) commercially available in Brazil for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.ResultsConsidering patients with seven or more days of symptoms, the sensitivity ranged from 59.5% to 83.1% for LFIAs and from 50.7% to 92.6% for ELISAs. For both methods, the sensitivity increased with clinical severity and days of symptoms. The agreement among LFIAs performed with digital blood and serum was moderate. Specificity was, in general, higher for LFIAs than for ELISAs. Infectious diseases prevalent in the tropics, such as HIV, leishmaniasis, arboviruses, and malaria, represent conditions with the potential to cause false-positive results with these tests, which significantly compromises their specificity.ConclusionThe performance of immunoassays was only moderate, affected by the duration and clinical severity of the disease. Absence of discriminatory power between IgM/IgA and IgG has also been demonstrated, which prevents the use of acute-phase antibodies for decisions on social isolation.
| S-EPMC7544564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is ravaging the globe. Since its first report in December 2019, COVID-19 cases have exploded to over 14 million as of July 2020, claiming more than 600,000 lives. Implementing fast and widespread diagnostic tests is paramount to contain COVID-19, given the current lack of an effective therapeutic or vaccine. This review focuses on a broad description of currently available diagnostic tests to detect either the virus (SARS-CoV-2) or virus-induced immune responses. We specifically explain the working mechanisms of these tests and compare their analytical performance. These analyses will assist in selecting most effective tests for a given application, for example, epidemiology or global pandemic research, population screening, hospital-based testing, home-based and point-of-care testing, and therapeutic trials. Finally, we lay out the shortcomings of certain tests and future needs.
| S-EPMC7381402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and threatened human life. Diagnosis is crucial to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections and save lives. Diagnostic tests for COVID-19 have varying sensitivity and specificity, and the false-negative results would have substantial consequences to patient treatment and pandemic control. To detect all suspected infections, multiple testing is widely used. However, it may be challenging to build an assertion when the testing results are inconsistent. Considering the situation where there is more than one diagnostic outcome for each subject, we proposed a Bayesian probabilistic framework based on the sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic method to synthesize a posterior probability of being infected by SARS-CoV-2. We demonstrated that the synthesized posterior outcome outperformed each individual testing outcome. A user-friendly web application was developed to implement our analytic framework with free access via http://www2.ccrb.cuhk.edu.hk/statgene/COVID_19/. The web application enables the real-time display of the integrated outcome incorporating two or more tests and calculated based on Bayesian posterior probability. A simulation-based assessment demonstrated higher accuracy and precision of the Bayesian probabilistic model compared with a single-test outcome. The online tool developed in this study can assist physicians in making clinical evaluations by effectively integrating multiple COVID-19 tests.
| S-EPMC8441124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In December 2019, cases of pneumonia were detected in Wuhan, China, which were caused by the highly contagious coronavirus. This study is aimed at comparing the confusion regarding the selection of effective diagnostic methods to make a mutual comparison among existing SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and at determining the most effective one. Based on available published evidence and clinical practice, diagnostic tests of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) were evaluated by multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, namely, fuzzy preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (fuzzy PROMETHEE) and fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (fuzzy TOPSIS). Computerized tomography of chest (chest CT), the detection of viral nucleic acid by polymerase chain reaction, cell culture, CoV-19 antigen detection, CoV-19 antibody IgM, CoV-19 antibody IgG, and chest X-ray were evaluated by linguistic fuzzy scale to compare among the diagnostic tests. This scale consists of selected parameters that possessed different weights which were determined by the experts' opinions of the field. The results of our study with both proposed MCDM methods indicated that the most effective diagnosis method of COVID-19 was chest CT. It is interesting to note that the methods that are consistently used in the diagnosis of viral diseases were ranked in second place for the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, each country should use appropriate diagnostic solutions according to its own resources. Our findings also show which diagnostic systems can be used in combination.
| S-EPMC7411452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.
| S-EPMC7327913 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the methodologies used in the estimation of diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and other nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and to evaluate the quality and reliability of the studies employing those methods.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of English-language articles published December 31, 2019-June 19, 2020. Studies of any design that performed tests on ≥10 patients and reported or inferred correlative statistics were included. Studies were evaluated using elements of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) guidelines.ResultsWe conducted a narrative and tabular synthesis of studies organized by their reference standard strategy or comparative agreement method, resulting in six categorizations. Critical study details were frequently unreported, including the mechanism for patient/sample selection and researcher blinding to results, which lead to concern for bias.ConclusionsCurrent studies estimating test performance characteristics have imperfect study design and statistical methods for the estimation of test performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 tests. The included studies employ heterogeneous methods and overall have an increased risk of bias. Employing standardized guidelines for study designs and statistical methods will improve the process for developing and validating rRT-PCR and NAAT for the diagnosis of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7457918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe early detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection to improve disease management becomes the greatest challenge. Despite the high sensitivity of RT-PCR, not only it was reported that 20-67% of infected patients had false-negative results. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used as a point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in pharyngeal and blood specimens. It's more appealing since it's less time-consuming, doesn't seem to be as expensive, and doesn't need any specific training, but the poor sensitivity is the major limitation. Several reports indicated the rapid test of blood and pharyngeal samples has the same sensitivity as the RT-PCR, but some reports have lower sensitivity, especially in asymptomatic patients.MethodsIn the present survey, we investigate the eligible studies for the sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests and explore the factors that influence the result to help better diagnose COVID-19 infection. 20 studies met the inclusion criteria which imposed 33 different tests.ResultsOur findings showed the type of sample, the type of assay, the time of sampling, and the load of virus influence on the sensitivity of RDTs.ConclusionThis research extends our knowledge of how to improve the sensitivity of RDTs to better diagnose the infected patients to address the controlling COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC9005339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo collate the evidence on the accuracy parameters of all available diagnostic methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2.MethodsA systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. Searches were conducted in Pubmed and Scopus (April 2020). Studies reporting data on sensitivity or specificity of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 using any human biological sample were included.ResultsSixteen studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis showed that computed tomography has high sensitivity (91.9% [89.8%-93.7%]), but low specificity (25.1% [21.0%-29.5%]). The combination of IgM and IgG antibodies demonstrated promising results for both parameters (84.5% [82.2%-86.6%]; 91.6% [86.0%-95.4%], respectively). For RT-PCR tests, rectal stools/swab, urine, and plasma were less sensitive while sputum (97.2% [90.3%-99.7%]) presented higher sensitivity for detecting the virus.ConclusionsRT-PCR remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in sputum samples. However, the combination of different diagnostic tests is highly recommended to achieve adequate sensitivity and specificity.
| S-EPMC7350782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: For the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) response, COVID-19 antigen (Ag), and antibody (Ab) rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are expected to complement central molecular testing particularly in low-resource settings. The present review assesses requirements for implementation of COVID-19 RDTs in sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: Review of PubMed-published articles assessing COVID-19 RDTs complemented with Instructions for Use (IFU) of products. Results: In total 47 articles on two COVID-19 Ag RDTs and 54 COVID-19 Ab RDTs and IFUs of 20 COVID-19 Ab RDTs were retrieved. Only five COVID-19 Ab RDTs (9.3%) were assessed with capillary blood sampling at the point-of-care; none of the studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Sampling: Challenges for COVID-19 Ag RDTs include nasopharyngeal sampling (technique, biosafety) and sample stability; for COVID-19 Ab RDTs equivalence of whole blood vs. plasma/serum needs further validation (assessed for only eight (14.8%) products). Sensitivity-Specificity: sensitivity of COVID-19 Ag and Ab RDTs depend on viral load (antigen) and timeframe (antibody), respectively; COVID-19 Ab tests have lower sensitivity compared to laboratory test platforms and the kinetics of IgM and IgG are very similar. Reported specificity was high but has not yet been assessed against tropical pathogens. Kit configuration: For COVID-19 Ag RDTs, flocked swabs should be added to the kit; for COVID-19 Ab RDTs, finger prick sampling materials, transfer devices, and controls should be added (currently only supplied in 15, 5, and 1/20 products). Usability and Robustness: some COVID-19 Ab RDTs showed high proportions of faint lines (>40%) or invalid results (>20%). Shortcomings were reported for buffer vials (spills, air bubbles) and their instructions for use. Stability: storage temperature was ≤ 30°C for all but one RDT, in-use and result stability were maximal at 1 h and 30 min, respectively. Integration in the healthcare setting requires a target product profile, landscape overview of technologies, certified manufacturing capacity, a sustainable market, and a stringent but timely regulation. In-country deployment depends on integration in the national laboratory network. Discussion/Conclusion: Despite these limitations, successful implementation models in triage, contact tracing, and surveillance have been proposed, in particular for COVID-19 Ab RDTs. Valuable experience is available from implementation of other disease-specific RDTs in sub-Saharan Africa.
| S-EPMC7662157 | biostudies-literature