COVID-19 has spread globally since its discovery in Hubei province, China in December 2019. A combination of computed tomography imaging, whole genome sequencing, and electron microscopy were initially used to screen and identify SARS-CoV-2, the viral etiology of COVID-19. The aim of this review article is to inform the audience of diagnostic and surveillance technologies for SARS-CoV-2 and their performance characteristics. We describe point-of-care diagnostics that are on the horizon and encourage academics to advance their technologies beyond conception. Developing plug-and-play diagnostics to manage the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak would be useful in preventing future epidemics.

Diagnosing COVID-19: The Disease and Tools for Detection

SUMMARYIn recent decades, several new diseases have emerged in different geographical areas, with pathogens including Ebola virus, Zika virus, Nipah virus, and coronaviruses (CoVs). Recently, a new type of viral infection emerged in Wuhan City, China, and initial genomic sequencing data of this virus do not match with previously sequenced CoVs, suggesting a novel CoV strain (2019-nCoV), which has now been termed severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is suspected to originate from an animal host (zoonotic origin) followed by human-to-human transmission, the possibility of other routes should not be ruled out. Compared to diseases caused by previously known human CoVs, COVID-19 shows less severe pathogenesis but higher transmission competence, as is evident from the continuously increasing number of confirmed cases globally. Compared to other emerging viruses, such as Ebola virus, avian H7N9, SARS-CoV, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), SARS-CoV-2 has shown relatively low pathogenicity and moderate transmissibility. Codon usage studies suggest that this novel virus has been transferred from an animal source, such as bats. Early diagnosis by real-time PCR and next-generation sequencing has facilitated the identification of the pathogen at an early stage. Since no antiviral drug or vaccine exists to treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2, potential therapeutic strategies that are currently being evaluated predominantly stem from previous experience with treating SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and other emerging viral diseases. In this review, we address epidemiological, diagnostic, clinical, and therapeutic aspects, including perspectives of vaccines and preventive measures that have already been globally recommended to counter this pandemic virus.

Coronavirus Disease 2019–COVID-19

Background
Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission.

Objectives
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups.

Search methods
Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions.

Selection criteria
We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria).

Data collection and analysis
Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

Main results
Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays.

We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19.

Antigen tests

Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%).

At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.

No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing.

Rapid molecular assays

Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset.

Authors' conclusions
Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected.

Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice.

Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required.

/pdf/rapid-point-of-care-antigen-and-molecular-based-tests-for-2a2qjx1fq9.pdf

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The current outbreak of the pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) demands its rapid, convenient, and large-scale diagnosis to downregulate its spread within as well as across the communities. But the reliability, reproducibility, and selectivity of majority of such diagnostic tests fail when they are tested either to a viral load at its early representation or to a viral gene mutated during its current spread. In this regard, a selective "naked-eye" detection of SARS-CoV-2 is highly desirable, which can be tested without accessing any advanced instrumental techniques. We herein report the development of a colorimetric assay based on gold nanoparticles (AuNPs), when capped with suitably designed thiol-modified antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) specific for N-gene (nucleocapsid phosphoprotein) of SARS-CoV-2, could be used for diagnosing positive COVID-19 cases within 10 min from the isolated RNA samples. The thiol-modified ASO-capped AuNPs agglomerate selectively in the presence of its target RNA sequence of SARS-CoV-2 and demonstrate a change in its surface plasmon resonance. Further, the addition of RNaseH cleaves the RNA strand from the RNA-DNA hybrid leading to a visually detectable precipitate from the solution mediated by the additional agglomeration among the AuNPs. The selectivity of the assay has been monitored in the presence of MERS-CoV viral RNA with a limit of detection of 0.18 ng/μL of RNA having SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Thus, the current study reports a selective and visual "naked-eye" detection of COVID-19 causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, without the requirement of any sophisticated instrumental techniques.

/pdf/selective-naked-eye-detection-of-sars-cov-2-mediated-by-n-2ddncuyal5.pdf

Selective Naked-Eye Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Mediated by N Gene Targeted Antisense Oligonucleotide Capped Plasmonic Nanoparticles.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) coronavirus is a major public health challenge. Rapid tests for detecting existing SARS-CoV-2 infections and assessing virus spread are critical. Approaches to detect viral RNA based on reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) have potential as simple, scalable, and broadly applicable testing methods. Compared to RT quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)-based methods, RT-LAMP assays require incubation at a constant temperature, thus eliminating the need for sophisticated instrumentation. Here, we tested a two-color RT-LAMP assay protocol for detecting SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA using a primer set specific for the N gene. We tested our RT-LAMP assay on surplus RNA samples isolated from 768 pharyngeal swab specimens collected from individuals being tested for COVID-19. We determined the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. Compared to an RT-qPCR assay using a sensitive primer set, we found that the RT-LAMP assay reliably detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA with an RT-qPCR cycle threshold (CT) number of up to 30, with a sensitivity of 97.5% and a specificity of 99.7%. We also developed a swab-to-RT-LAMP assay that did not require a prior RNA isolation step, which retained excellent specificity (99.5%) but showed lower sensitivity (86% for CT < 30) than the RT-LAMP assay. In addition, we developed a multiplexed sequencing protocol (LAMP-sequencing) as a diagnostic validation procedure to detect and record the outcome of RT-LAMP reactions.

/pdf/a-colorimetric-rt-lamp-assay-and-lamp-sequencing-for-h88h9zodh3.pdf

A colorimetric RT-LAMP assay and LAMP-sequencing for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in clinical samples.

The recent outbreak of a novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (also known as 2019-nCoV) threatens global health, given serious cause for concern. SARS-CoV-2 is a human-to-human pathogen that caused fever, severe respiratory disease and pneumonia (known as COVID-19). By press time, more than 70,000 infected people had been confirmed worldwide. SARS-CoV-2 is very similar to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus broke out 17 years ago. However, it has increased transmissibility as compared with the SARS-CoV, e.g. very often infected individuals without any symptoms could still transfer the virus to others. It is thus urgent to develop a rapid, accurate and onsite diagnosis methods in order to effectively identify these early infects, treat them on time and control the disease spreading. Here we developed an isothermal LAMP based method-iLACO (isothermal LAMP based method for COVID-19) to amplify a fragment of the ORF1ab gene using 6 primers. We assured the species-specificity of iLACO by comparing the sequences of 11 related viruses by BLAST (including 7 similar coronaviruses, 2 influenza viruses and 2 normal coronaviruses). The sensitivity is comparable to Taqman based qPCR detection method, detecting synthesized RNA equivalent to 10 copies of 2019-nCoV virus. Reaction time varied from 15-40 minutes, depending on the loading of virus in the collected samples. The accuracy, simplicity and versatility of the new developed method suggests that iLACO assays can be conveniently applied with for 2019-nCoV threat control, even in those cases where specialized molecular biology equipment is not available.

Rapid Detection of COVID-19 Coronavirus Using a Reverse Transcriptional Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP) Diagnostic Platform.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/02/24/2020.02.20.20025874.full.pdf

Rapid colorimetric detection of COVID-19 coronavirus using a reverse tran-scriptional loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) diagnostic plat-form: iLACO

The purpose of this study was to screen for high-risk factors leading to the early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and to construct a prediction model and nomogram. This retrospective study included 108 patients with primary HCC who underwent RFA treatment at the Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital between January 2018 and June 2019. Four risk factors were screened for using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses: number of tumors (hazard ratio [HR] = 14.684, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.099-196.215, p = 0.042), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (HR = 2.178, 95% CI: 1.003-4.730, p = 0.049), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) performance (HR = 6.482, 95% CI: 1.161-36.184, p = 0.033) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) level (HR = 1.001, 95% CI: 1.000-1.003, p = 0.040). We established a prediction model: Logit(p) = -3.096 + 2.827 × (number of tumors >1 = 1) + 1.851 × (CEUS revealing rapid enhancement of blood flow signal in the arterial phase and clearance in the portal phase = 1) + 1.941 × (NLR >1.55 = 1) + 0.257 × (AFP >32.545 = 1). Through clinical decision curve analysis, the model's threshold was 0.043-0.873, indicating a high clinical value. Patients with a high AFP level, typical CEUS enhancement pattern, multiple tumors and elevated NLR are more likely to relapse early. 

Xiaowen Hao

Papers

Rapid Detection of COVID-19 Coronavirus Using a Reverse Transcriptional Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP) Diagnostic Platform.

Rapid colorimetric detection of COVID-19 coronavirus using a reverse tran-scriptional loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) diagnostic plat-form: iLACO

Prediction Model and Nomogram of Early Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Radiofrequency Ablation Based on Logistic Regression Analysis.