Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.This first in a two-part series on COVID-19 updates provides a focused overview of the presentation and evaluation of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians.COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Several variants exist, including a variant of concern known as Delta (B.1.617.2 lineage) and the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 lineage). The Delta variant is associated with higher infectivity and poor patient outcomes, and the Omicron variant has resulted in a significant increase in infections. While over 80% of patients experience mild symptoms, a significant proportion can be critically ill, including those who are older and those with comorbidities. Upper respiratory symptoms, fever, and changes in taste/smell remain the most common presenting symptoms. Extrapulmonary complications are numerous and may be severe, including the cardiovascular, neurologic, gastrointestinal, and dermatologic systems. Emergency department evaluation includes focused testing for COVID-19 and assessment of end-organ injury. Imaging may include chest radiography, computed tomography, or ultrasound. Several risk scores may assist in prognostication, including the 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) score, quick COVID Severity Index (qCSI), NEWS2, and the PRIEST score, but these should only supplement and not replace clinical judgment.This review provides a focused update of the presentation and evaluation of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2022.01.028

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Presentation and evaluation

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus that spread worldwide from 2019 causing the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 infection is characterised by an initial viral phase followed in some patients by a severe inflammatory phase. Importantly, immunocompromised patients may have a prolonged viral phase, shedding infectious viral particles for months, and absent or dysfunctional inflammatory phase. Among haematological patients, COVID-19 has been associated with high mortality rate in acute leukaemia, high risk-myelodysplastic syndromes, and after haematopoietic cell transplant and chimeric-antigen-receptor-T therapies. The clinical symptoms and signs were similar to that reported for the overall population, but the severity and outcome were worse. The deferral of immunodepleting cellular therapy treatments is recommended for SARS-CoV-2 positive patient, while in the other at-risk cases, the haematological treatment decisions must be weighed between individual risks and benefits. The gold standard for the diagnosis is the detection of viral RNA by nucleic acid testing on nasopharyngeal-swabbed sample, which provides high sensitivity and specificity; while rapid antigen tests have a lower sensitivity, especially in asymptomatic patients. The prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection is based on strict infection control measures recommended for aerosol-droplet-and-contact transmission. Vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 has shown high efficacy in reducing community transmission, hospitalisation and deaths due to severe COVID-19 disease in the general population, but immunosuppressed/haematology patients may have lower sero-responsiveness to vaccinations. Moreover, the recent emergence of new variants may require vaccine modifications and strategies to improve efficacy in these vulnerable patients. Beyond supportive care, the specific treatment is directed at viral replication control (antivirals, anti-spike monoclonal antibodies) and, in patients who need it, to the control of inflammation (dexamethasone, anti-Il-6 agents, and others). However, the benefit of all these various prophylactic and therapeutic treatments in haematology patients deserves further studies. 

/pdf/recommendations-for-the-management-of-covid-19-in-patients-1qyl6qoz.pdf

Recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in patients with haematological malignancies or haematopoietic cell transplantation, from the 2021 European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL 9)

SARS-CoV-2 viral load and detection of infectious virus in the respiratory tract are the two key parameters for estimating infectiousness. As shedding of infectious virus is required for onward transmission, understanding shedding characteristics is relevant for public health interventions. Viral shedding is influenced by biological characteristics of the virus, host factors and pre-existing immunity (previous infection or vaccination) of the infected individual. Although the process of human-to-human transmission is multifactorial, viral load substantially contributed to human-to-human transmission, with higher viral load posing a greater risk for onward transmission. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern have further complicated the picture of virus shedding. As underlying immunity in the population through previous infection, vaccination or a combination of both has rapidly increased on a global scale after almost 3 years of the pandemic, viral shedding patterns have become more distinct from those of ancestral SARS-CoV-2. Understanding the factors and mechanisms that influence infectious virus shedding and the period during which individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 are contagious is crucial to guide public health measures and limit transmission. Furthermore, diagnostic tools to demonstrate the presence of infectious virus from routine diagnostic specimens are needed. 

/pdf/sars-cov-2-viral-load-and-shedding-kinetics-2a6wz4a1.pdf

SARS-CoV-2 viral load and shedding kinetics

The identification of viral RNA using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for identifying an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limitations of RT-qPCR such as requirement of expensive instruments, trained staff and laboratory facilities led to development of rapid antigen tests (RATs). The performance of RATs has been widely evaluated and found to be varied in different settings. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the commercially available RATs. This review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021278105). Literature search was performed through PubMed, Embase and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to search studies published up to 26 August 2021. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs and subgroup analyses were calculated. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of RATs were 70% (95% CI: 69–71) and 98% (95% CI: 98–98), respectively. In subgroup analyses, nasal swabs showed the highest sensitivity of 83% (95% CI: 80–86) followed by nasopharyngeal swabs 71% (95% CI: 70–72), throat swabs 69% (95% CI: 63–75) and saliva 68% (95% CI: 59–77). Samples from symptomatic patients showed a higher sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 82–82) as compared to asymptomatic patients at 68% (95% CI: 65–71), while a cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤25 showed a higher sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 95–97) as compared to higher Ct value. Although the sensitivity of RATs needs to be enhanced, it may still be a viable option in places where laboratory facilities are lacking for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease.

/pdf/performance-of-rapid-antigen-tests-for-covid-19-diagnosis-a-152gglkl.pdf

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in workplaces has been a persistent issue throughout the pandemic. In response, a not-for-profit initiative emerged to mitigate COVID-19 workplace transmission in Canada. We report the process for establishing a workplace frequent rapid antigen test (RAT) program. The screening program identified 473 asymptomatic individuals who tested positive on the RAT and confirmed positive by a nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) diagnostic test. One in 4300 RATs was presumptive positive but later tested PCR negative, and thus, false positives did not meaningfully disrupt workplace operations. Most employers rated the program highly and felt strongly that the program contributed to workplace and community safety. The findings describe a sustained and scalable implementation plan for establishing a frequent workplace testing program. High-frequency testing programs offer the potential to break chains of transmission and act as an extra layer of protection in a comprehensive public health response.

https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abm3608?download=true

Large-scale implementation of rapid antigen testing system for COVID-19 in workplaces

Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods We registered the review on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix and bioRvix, FINDdx) for publications up until December 11th, 2020. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed and when more than four studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses ((1) performed con-form with manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU) or not, (2) symptomatic vs. asymptomatic, (3) duration of symptoms less than seven days vs. more than seven days, (4) Ct-value Results From a total of 11,715 articles, we extracted 98 analytical and clinical data sets. 74 clinical accuracy data sets were evaluated that included 31,202 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity was 73.8% (CI 68.6 to 78.5). If analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions using fresh upper respiratory swab samples, the sensitivity increased to 79.1% (95%CI 75.0 to 82.8). The SD Biosensor Standard Q and Abbott Panbio showed the highest sensitivity with 81.7% and 72.7%, respectively. The best Ag-RDT performance was found with nasopharyngeal sampling (77.3%, CI 72.0 to 81.9) in comparison to other sample types (e.g., anterior nasal or mid turbinate 63.5%, CI 49.5 to 75.5). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in higher sensitivity (87.5%, CI 86.0 to 89.1) compared to testing after one week (64.1%, CI 54.4 to 73.8). The tests performed markedly better on samples with lower Ct-values, i.e., Conclusion As Ag-RDTs detect most cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load, they can have high utility for screening purposes in the early phase of disease, and thus can be a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization of conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data. Summary In this living systematic review we analyzed 98 data sets for performance of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs compared to RT-PCR. Best-performing tests achieved a sensitivity of 81.7%. Highest sensitivity was found in patients within seven days of symptom onset when NP swabs were utilized.

/pdf/the-accuracy-of-novel-antigen-rapid-diagnostics-for-sars-cov-4o9pyqesh3.pdf

The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail. Methods and findings We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched preprint and peer-reviewed databases for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1). When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 78.7). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients’ symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in viral load assessment and sample origination. Conclusions Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all (>90%) when high viral loads are present. With viral load, as estimated by Ct-value, being the most influential factor on their sensitivity, they are especially useful to detect persons with high viral load who are most likely to transmit the virus. To further quantify the effects of other factors influencing test sensitivity, standardization of clinical accuracy studies and access to patient level Ct-values and duration of symptoms are needed.

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors

Lukas E. Brümmer

Papers

The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

Accuracy of rapid point-of-care antigen-based diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression analyzing influencing factors