Containment strategies and clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients during the current pandemic depend on reliable diagnostic PCR assays for the severe acute respiratory ...syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Here, we compare 11 different RT-PCR test systems used in seven diagnostic laboratories in Germany in March 2020. While most assays performed well, we identified detection problems in a commonly used assay that may have resulted in false-negative test results during the first weeks of the pandemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic provides an urgent example where a gap exists between availability of state-of-the-art diagnostics and current needs. As assay protocols and primer sequences become widely ...known, many laboratories perform diagnostic tests using methods such as RT-PCR or reverse transcription loop mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). Here, we report an RT-LAMP isothermal assay for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and demonstrate the assay on clinical samples using a simple and accessible point-of-care (POC) instrument. We characterized the assay by dipping swabs into synthetic nasal fluid spiked with the virus, moving the swab to viral transport medium (VTM), and sampling a volume of the VTM to perform the RT-LAMP assay without an RNA extraction kit. The assay has a limit of detection (LOD) of 50 RNA copies per μL in the VTM solution within 30 min. We further demonstrate our assay by detecting SARS-CoV-2 viruses from 20 clinical samples. Finally, we demonstrate a portable and real-time POC device to detect SARS-CoV-2 from VTM samples using an additively manufactured three-dimensional cartridge and a smartphone-based reader. The POC system was tested using 10 clinical samples, and was able to detect SARS-CoV-2 from these clinical samples by distinguishing positive samples from negative samples after 30 min. The POC tests are in complete agreement with RT-PCR controls. This work demonstrates an alternative pathway for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics that does not require conventional laboratory infrastructure, in settings where diagnosis is required at the point of sample collection.
•SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection is performed for clinical diagnosis of COVID-19.•The detection of two different targets on the SARS-CoV-2 genome is recommended.•An internal control is required for ...evaluating the assay qualities.•A multiplex rRT-PCR methodology was developed for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection.•A multiplex rRT-PCR will enable reducing reagent use and cost, and handling time.
The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is used to confirm the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 by molecular diagnostic laboratories. We developed a multiplex rRT-PCR methodology for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.
Three genes were used for multiplex rRT-PCR: the Sarbecovirus specific E gene, the SARS-CoV-2 specific N gene, and the human ABL1 gene as an internal control.
Good correlation of Cq values was observed between the simplex and multiplex rRT-PCR methodologies. Low copies (<25 copies/reaction) of SARS-CoV-2 RNA were detected by the novel multiplex rRT-PCR method.
The proposed multiplex rRT-PCR methodology will enable highly sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, reducing reagent use and cost, and time required by clinical laboratory technicians.
The emergence and spread of Zika virus (ZIKV) presented a challenge to the diagnosis of ZIKV infections in areas with transmission of dengue (DENV) and chikungunya (CHIKV) viruses. To facilitate ...detection of ZIKV infections, and differentiate these infections from DENV and CHIKV, we developed the Trioplex real-time RT-PCR assay (Trioplex assay). Here, we describe the optimization of multiplex and singleplex formats of the assay for a variety of chemistries and instruments to facilitate global standardization and implementation. We evaluated the analytical performance of all Trioplex modalities for detection of these three pathogens in serum and whole blood, and for ZIKV in urine. The limit of detection for the three viruses and in different RNA-extraction modalities is near 10
genome copy equivalents per milliliter (GCE/mL). Simultaneous testing of more than one specimen type from each patient provides a 6.4% additional diagnostic sensitivity. Overall, the high sensitivity of the Trioplex assay demonstrates the utility of this assay ascertaining Zika cases.
► The Tm of a TaqMan probe employed in a widely used RT-qPCR for HEV was calculated. ► Calculations showed that the melting temperature (Tm) of the probe was suboptimal. ► A Minor Groove Binder ...version of probe was synthesised in order to increase its Tm. ► MGB probe detected HEV in 6 samples that were negative with the unmodified probe. ► False negative results were due to a C→T point mutation in the probe binding region.
Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a major cause of acute viral hepatitis in many parts of the developing world. It is responsible for both sporadic infections and large scale epidemics and may be associated with significant mortality during pregnancy. Over the past two decades many serological and nucleic acid based diagnostic tests for HEV have been developed, including several reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction assays (RT-qPCR). One of the most widely used of these RT-qPCRs is that developed by Jothikumar and colleagues (Journal of Virological Methods 2006, 131, 65–71). Whilst reviewing this assay we calculated the predicted melting temperature of its TaqMan probe and consequently synthesised a minor groove binder (MGB) version in order to increase its hybridisation stability. In this report the performance of the original unmodified probe is compared with that of the MGB-modified version. We demonstrate that the MGB-modified probe detected HEV RNA in plasma samples from six patients with serologically confirmed hepatitis E in whom the unmodified probe had failed to detect HEV RNA. Sequence analysis of the ORF3 segment targeted by the RT-qPCR was possible in 4 of the 6 patients and revealed an identical C→T single nucleotide mutation in the probe binding region in each case.
Background
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) virus and resulting COVID‐19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available ...to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 aim to identify previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection.
Objectives
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, or has previously had SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys.
Search methods
We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020.
Selection criteria
We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT‐PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria).
Data collection and analysis
We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS‐2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random‐effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post‐symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Main results
We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in‐house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints.
We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi‐group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID‐19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two‐thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID‐19 cases based on RT‐PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false‐negative RT‐PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5).
We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post‐symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time.
Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post‐symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False‐positive results were more common where COVID‐19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance.
Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post‐symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high‐risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive.
Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands.
Authors' conclusions
The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID‐19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT‐PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post‐symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID‐19 disease.
The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID‐19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID‐19‐positive cases who are RT‐PCR‐negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT‐PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast‐moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.
Amplicon-based marker gene surveys form the basis of most microbiome and other microbial community studies. Such PCR-based methods have multiple steps, each of which is susceptible to error and bias. ...Variance in results has also arisen through the use of multiple methods of next-generation sequencing (NGS) amplicon library preparation. Here we formally characterized errors and biases by comparing different methods of amplicon-based NGS library preparation. Using mock community standards, we analyzed the amplification process to reveal insights into sources of experimental error and bias in amplicon-based microbial community and microbiome experiments. We present a method that improves on the current best practices and enables the detection of taxonomic groups that often go undetected with existing methods.
The current COVID-19 pandemic presents a serious public health crisis, and a better understanding of the scope and spread of the virus would be aided by more widespread testing. Nucleic-acid-based ...tests currently offer the most sensitive and early detection of COVID-19. However, the "gold standard" test pioneered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention takes several hours to complete and requires extensive human labor, materials such as RNA extraction kits that could become in short supply, and relatively scarce qPCR machines. It is clear that a huge effort needs to be made to scale up current COVID-19 testing by orders of magnitude. There is thus a pressing need to evaluate alternative protocols, reagents, and approaches to allow nucleic-acid testing to continue in the face of these potential shortages. There has been a tremendous explosion in the number of papers written within the first weeks of the pandemic evaluating potential advances, comparable reagents, and alternatives to the "gold-standard" CDC RT-PCR test. Here we present a collection of these recent advances in COVID-19 nucleic acid testing, including both peer-reviewed and preprint articles. Due to the rapid developments during this crisis, we have included as many publications as possible, but many of the cited sources have not yet been peer-reviewed, so we urge researchers to further validate results in their own laboratories. We hope that this review can urgently consolidate and disseminate information to aid researchers in designing and implementing optimized COVID-19 testing protocols to increase the availability, accuracy, and speed of widespread COVID-19 testing.
Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome is an, often fatal, emerging zoonotic disease in the Americas caused by hantaviruses (family: Hantaviridae). In Brazil, hantavirus routine diagnosis is based on serology ...(IgM-ELISA) while RT-PCR is often used to confirm acute infection. A Semi-nested RT-PCR and an internally controlled RT-qPCR assays were developed for detection and quantification of four hantaviruses strains circulating in the Brazilian Amazon: Anajatuba (ANAJV) and Castelo dos Sonhos (CASV) strains of Andes virus (ANDV) species; and Rio Mamoré (RIOMV) and Laguna Negra (LNV) strains of LNV species. A consensus region in the N gene of these hantaviruses was used to design the primer sets and a hydrolysis probe. In vitro transcribed RNA was diluted in standards with known concentration. MS2 bacteriophage RNA was detected together with hantavirus RNA as an exogenous control in a duplex reaction. RT-qPCR efficiency was around 100% and the limit of detection was 0.9 copies/μL of RNA for RT-qPCR and 10 copies/μL of RNA for Semi-nested RT-PCR. There was no amplification of either negative samples or samples positive to other pathogens. To assess the protocol for clinical sensitivity, specificity and general accuracy values, both assays were used to test two groups of samples: one comprising patients with disease (n = 50) and other containing samples from healthy individuals (n = 50), according to IgM-ELISA results. A third group of samples (n = 27) infected with other pathogens were tested for specificity analysis. RT-qPCR was more sensitive than semi-nested RT-PCR, being able to detect three samples undetected by conventional RT-PCR. RT-qPCR clinical sensitivity, specificity and general accuracy values were 92.5%, 100% and 97.63%, respectively. Thus, the assays developed in this study were able to detect the four Brazilian Amazon hantaviruses with good specificity and sensitivity, and may become powerful tools in diagnostic, surveillance and research applications of these and possibly other hantaviruses.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is commonly diagnosed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to ...detect viral RNA in patient samples, but RNA extraction constitutes a major bottleneck in current testing. Methodological simplification could increase diagnostic availability and efficiency, benefitting patient care and infection control. Here, we describe methods circumventing RNA extraction in COVID-19 testing by performing RT-PCR directly on heat-inactivated or lysed samples. Our data, including benchmarking using 597 clinical patient samples and a standardised diagnostic system, demonstrate that direct RT-PCR is viable option to extraction-based tests. Using controlled amounts of active SARS-CoV-2, we confirm effectiveness of heat inactivation by plaque assay and evaluate various generic buffers as transport medium for direct RT-PCR. Significant savings in time and cost are achieved through RNA-extraction-free protocols that are directly compatible with established PCR-based testing pipelines. This could aid expansion of COVID-19 testing.
PDF
