Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
J Clin Pathol ; 74(8): 496-503, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247388

ABSTRACT

Developing and deploying new diagnostic tests are difficult, but the need to do so in response to a rapidly emerging pandemic such as COVID-19 is crucially important. During a pandemic, laboratories play a key role in helping healthcare providers and public health authorities detect active infection, a task most commonly achieved using nucleic acid-based assays. While the landscape of diagnostics is rapidly evolving, PCR remains the gold-standard of nucleic acid-based diagnostic assays, in part due to its reliability, flexibility and wide deployment. To address a critical local shortage of testing capacity persisting during the COVID-19 outbreak, our hospital set up a molecular-based laboratory developed test (LDT) to accurately and safely diagnose SARS-CoV-2. We describe here the process of developing an emergency-use LDT, in the hope that our experience will be useful to other laboratories in future outbreaks and will help to lower barriers to establishing fast and accurate diagnostic testing in crisis conditions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Emergency Service, Hospital , Laboratories, Hospital , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Predictive Value of Tests , Reproducibility of Results
2.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(1): ofaa559, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1081406

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Concerns about false-negative (FN) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) have prompted recommendations for repeat testing if suspicion for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is moderate to high. However, the frequency of FNs and patient characteristics associated with FNs are poorly understood. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed test results from 15 011 adults who underwent ≥1 SARS-CoV-2 NAATs; 2699 had an initial negative NAAT and repeat testing. We defined FNs as ≥1 negative NAATs followed by a positive NAAT within 14 days during the same episode of illness. We stratified subjects with FNs by duration of symptoms before the initial FN test (≤5 days versus >5 days) and examined their clinical, radiologic, and laboratory characteristics. RESULTS: Sixty of 2699 subjects (2.2%) had a FN result during the study period. The weekly frequency of FNs among subjects with repeat testing peaked at 4.4%, coinciding with peak NAAT positivity (38%). Most subjects with FNs had symptoms (52 of 60; 87%) and chest radiography (19 of 32; 59%) consistent with COVID-19. Of the FN NAATs, 18 of 60 (30%) were performed early (ie, ≤1 day of symptom onset), and 18 of 60 (30%) were performed late (ie, >7 days after symptom onset) in disease. Among 17 subjects with 2 consecutive FNs on NP NAATs, 9 (53%) provided lower respiratory tract (LRT) specimens for testing, all of which were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support repeated NAATs among symptomatic patients, particularly during periods of higher COVID-19 incidence. The LRT testing should be prioritized to increase yield among patients with high clinical suspicion for COVID-19.

4.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(1)2020 12 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-991746

ABSTRACT

Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucleocapsid antibody tests (Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody) and one spike protein antibody test (DiaSorin IgG) were included. We assessed sensitivity using 128 serum samples from symptomatic PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and specificity using 1,204 samples submitted for routine serology prior to COVID-19's emergence, plus 64 pandemic-era samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Assays were evaluated as stand-alone tests and as components of a two-test algorithm in which positive results obtained using one assay were verified using a second assay. The two nucleocapsid antibody tests were more sensitive than the spike protein antibody test overall (70% and 70% versus 57%; P ≤ 0.003), with pronounced differences observed using samples collected 7 to 14 days after symptom onset. All three assays were comparably sensitive (≥89%; P ≥ 0.13) using samples collected >14 days after symptom onset. Specificity was higher using the nucleocapsid antibody tests (99.3% and 99.7%) than using the spike protein antibody test (97.8%; P ≤ 0.002). When any two assays were paired in a two-test algorithm, the specificity was 99.9% (P < 0.0001 to 0.25 compared with the individual assays), and the positive predictive value (PPV) improved substantially, with a minimal effect on the negative predictive value (NPV). In conclusion, two nucleocapsid antibody tests outperformed a spike protein antibody test. Pairing two different serologic tests in a two-test algorithm improves the PPV, compared with the individual assays alone, while maintaining the NPV.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Algorithms , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
5.
FASEB J ; 34(10): 13877-13884, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-733355

ABSTRACT

The diagnosis of COVID-19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. We conducted a single-center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. Clinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70%-71% from Days 9 to 11, and 30% at Day 21. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR-positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In contrast to PCR, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after Day 7, >80% after Day 12, and 100% by Day 21. Taken together, PCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time-dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/blood , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity
6.
Am J Hematol ; 95(12): 1522-1530, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-726263

ABSTRACT

Coagulopathy causes morbidity and mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Yet, the mechanisms are unclear and biomarkers are limited. Early in the pandemic, we observed markedly elevated factor V activity in a patient with COVID-19, which led us to measure factor V, VIII, and X activity in a cohort of 102 consecutive inpatients with COVID-19. Contemporaneous SARS-CoV-2-negative controls (n = 17) and historical pre-pandemic controls (n = 260-478) were also analyzed. This cohort represents severe COVID-19 with high rates of ventilator use (92%), line clots (47%), deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE) (23%), and mortality (22%). Factor V activity was significantly elevated in COVID-19 (median 150 IU/dL, range 34-248 IU/dL) compared to contemporaneous controls (median 105 IU/dL, range 22-161 IU/dL) (P < .001)-the strongest association with COVID-19 of any parameter studied, including factor VIII, fibrinogen, and D-dimer. Patients with COVID-19 and factor V activity >150 IU/dL exhibited significantly higher rates of DVT/PE (16/49, 33%) compared to those with factor V activity ≤150 IU/dL (7/53, 13%) (P = .03). Within this severe COVID-19 cohort, factor V activity associated with SARS-CoV-2 load in a sex-dependent manner. Subsequent decreases in factor V were linked to progression toward DIC and mortality. Together, these data reveal marked perturbations of factor V activity in severe COVID-19, provide links to SARS-CoV-2 disease biology and clinical outcomes, and nominate a candidate biomarker to investigate for guiding anticoagulation therapy in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , Factor V/analysis , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/blood , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation/blood , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Pulmonary Embolism/blood , Respiration, Artificial , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors , Venous Thrombosis/blood
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL