ABSTRACT
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is highly contagious and causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the most accurate and reliable molecular assay to detect active SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, a rapid increase in test subjects has created a global bottleneck in testing capacity. Given that efficient nucleic acid extraction greatly affects reliable and accurate testing results, we compared three extraction platforms: MagNA Pure 96 DNA and Viral NA Small Volume kit on MagNA Pure 96 (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), careGENETM Viral/Pathogen HiFi Nucleic Acid Isolation kit (WELLS BIO Inc., Seoul, Korea) on KingFisher Flex (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rocklin, CA, USA), and SGRespiTM Pure kit (Seegene Inc., Seoul, Korea) on Maelstrom 9600 (Taiwan Advanced Nanotech Inc., Taoyuan, Taiwan). RNA was extracted from 245 residual respiratory specimens from the different types of samples (i.e., NPS, sputum, and saliva) using three different kits. The 95% limits of detection of median tissue culture infectious dose per milliliter (TCID50/mL) for the MagNA Pure 96, KingFisher Flex, and Maelstrom 9600 were 0.37-3.15 × 101, 0.41-3.62 × 101, and 0.33-1.98 × 101, respectively. The KingFisher Flex platform exhibited 99.2% sensitivity and 100% specificity, whereas Maelstrom 9600 exhibited 98.3-100% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a 95.2% concordance between MagNA Pure 96 and KingFisher Flex and 95.4% concordance between MagNA Pure 96 and Maelstrom 9600, indicating that all three platforms provided statistically reliable results. This suggests that two modifying platforms, KingFisher Flex and Maelstrom 9600, are accurate and scalable extraction platforms for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 clinical detection and could help the management of COVID-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) triggers disease with nonspecific symptoms that overlap those of infections caused by other seasonal respiratory viruses (RVs), such as the influenza virus (Flu) or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). A molecular assay for accurate and rapid detection of RV and SARS-CoV-2 is crucial to manage these infections. Here, we compared the analytical performance and clinical reliability of Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2/FluA/FluB/RSV (SC2FabR; Seegene Inc., Seoul, South Korea) kit with those of four commercially available RV detection kits. Upon testing five target viral strains (SARS-CoV-2, FluA, FluB, RSV A, and RSV B), the analytical performance of SC2FabR was similar to that of the other kits, with no significant difference (p ≥ 0.78) in z-scores. The efficiency of SC2FabR (E-value, 81-104%) enabled reliable SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal RV detection in 888 nasopharyngeal swab specimens processed using a fully automated nucleic acid extraction platform. Bland-Altman analyses revealed an agreement value of 95.4% (SD ± 1.96) for the kits, indicating statistically similar results for all five. In conclusion, SC2FabR is a rapid and accurate diagnostic tool for both SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal RV detection, allowing for high-throughput RV analysis with efficiency comparable to that of commercially available kits. This can be used to help manage respiratory infections in patients during and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
ABSTRACT
(1) Background: Until now, several reports about pregnant women with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been published. However, there are no comprehensive systematic reviews collecting all case series studies on data regarding adverse pregnancy outcomes, especially association with treatment modalities. (2) Objective: We aimed to synthesize the most up-to-date and relevant available evidence on the outcomes of pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed infection with COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Google scholar, and Embase were explored for studies and papers regarding pregnant women with COVID-19, including obstetrical, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes and complications published from 1 January 2020 to 4 May 2020. Systematic review and search of the published literature was done using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). (4) Results: In total, 11 case series studies comprising 104 pregnant women with COVID-19 were included in our review. Fever (58.6%) and cough (30.7%) were the most common symptoms. Other symptoms included dyspnea (14.4%), chest discomfort (3.9%), sputum production (1.0%), sore throat (2.9%), and nasal obstruction (1.0%). Fifty-two patients (50.0%) eventually demonstrated abnormal chest CT, and of those with ground glass opacity (GGO), 23 (22.1%) were bilateral and 10 (9.6%) were unilateral. The most common treatment for COVID-19 was administration of antibiotics (25.9%) followed by antivirals (17.3%). Cesarean section was the mode of delivery for half of the women (50.0%), although no information was available for 28.8% of the cases. Regarding obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, fetal distress (13.5%), pre-labor rupture of membranes (9.6%), prematurity (8.7%), fetal death (4.8%), and abortion (2.9%) were reported. There are no positive results of neonatal infection by RT-PCR. (5) Conclusions: Although we have found that pregnancy with COVID-19 has significantly higher maternal mortality ratio compared to that of pregnancy without the disease, the evidence is too weak to state that COVID-19 results in poorer maternal outcome due to multiple factors. The number of COVID-19 pregnancy outcomes was not large enough to draw a conclusion and long-term outcomes are yet to be determined as the pandemic is still unfolding. Active and intensive follow-up is needed in order to provide robust data for future studies.