Performance of point-of care molecular and antigen-based tests for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Molecular and antigen point-of-care tests (POCTs) have augmented our ability to rapidly identify and manage SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their clinical performance varies among individual studies. OBJECTIVES: The evaluation of the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 cases compared with that of laboratory-based RT-PCR in real-life settings. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 study register, and COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed or preprint observational studies or randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of commercially available antigen and/or molecular POCTs for SARS-CoV-2, including multiplex PCR panels, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, with Emergency Use Authorization, and/or marked with Conformitè Europëenne from European Commission/European Union. PARTICIPANTS: Close contacts and/or patients with symptomatic and/or asymptomatic confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19 infection of any age. TEST/S: Molecular and/or antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 POCTs. REFERENCE STANDARD: Laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Eligible studies were subjected to quality-control and risk-of-bias assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Summary sensitivities and specificities with their 95% CIs were estimated using a bivariate model. Subgroup analysis was performed when at least three studies informed the outcome. RESULTS: A total of 123 eligible publications (97 and 26 studies assessing antigen-based and molecular POCTs, respectively) were retrieved from 4674 initial records. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 13 molecular-based POCTs were 92.8% (95% CI, 88.9-95.4%) and 97.6% (95% CI, 96.6-98.3%), respectively. The sensitivity of antigen-based POCTs pooled from 138 individual evaluations was considerably lower than that of molecular POCTs; the pooled sensitivity and specificity rates were 70.6% (95% CI, 67.2-73.8%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.5-99.2%), respectively. DISCUSSION: Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of molecular and antigen-based POCTs in underrepresented patient subgroups and different respiratory samples.

Insights into CD24 and Exosome Physiology and Potential Role in View of Recent Advances in COVID-19 Therapeutics: A Narrative Review.

Cluster of differentiation (CD) 24, a long-known protein with multifaceted functions, has gained attention as a possible treatment for Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) due to its known anti-inflammatory action. Extracellular vesicles (EVs), such as exosomes and microvesicles, may serve as candidate drug delivery platforms for novel therapeutic approaches in COVID-19 and various other diseases due to their unique characteristics. In the current review, we describe the physiology of CD24 and EVs and try to elucidate their role, both independently and as a combination, in COVID-19 therapeutics. CD24 may act as an important immune regulator in diseases with complex physiologies characterized by excessive inflammation. Very recent data outline a possible therapeutic role not only in COVID-19 but also in other similar disease states, e.g., acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and sepsis where immune dysregulation plays a key pathophysiologic role. On the other hand, CD24, as well as other therapeutic molecules, can be administered with the use of exosomes, exploiting their unique characteristics to create a novel drug delivery platform as outlined in recent clinical efforts. The implications for human therapeutics in general are huge with regard to pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy that will be further elucidated in future randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Intensity and Dynamics of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immune Responses after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination: Implications for Public Health Vaccination Strategies.

The aim of our study was to investigate the immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 vaccination according to the age and medical status of vaccinated individuals. A total of 511 individuals were enrolled (median age: 54.0 years, range: 19-105); 509 of these individuals (99.6%) received two doses of BNT162b2 at an interval of 21 days. IgG and IgA responses were evaluated on days 21, 42, 90, and 180 after the first dose with chemiluminescent microparticle and ELISA assays. The cell-mediated immune responses were assessed by an automated interferon-gamma release assay. We demonstrated positive antibody responses after vaccination for the majority of enrolled participants, although waning of IgG and IgA titers was also observed over time. We further observed that the intensity of humoral responses was positively correlated with increased age and prior COVID-19 infection (either before or after the first vaccination). Moreover, we found that only a medical history of autoimmune disease could affect the intensity of IgA and IgG responses (3 weeks after the primary and secondary immunization, respectively), while development of systemic adverse reactions after the second vaccination dose was significantly associated with the height of IgG responses. Finally, we identified a clear correlation between humoral and cellular responses, suggesting that the study of cellular responses is not required as a routine laboratory test after vaccination. Our results provide useful information about the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccination with significant implications for public health vaccination strategies.

ESCMID rapid guidelines for assessment and management of long COVID.

SCOPE: The aim of these guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the assessment and management of individuals with persistent symptoms after acute COVID-19 infection and to provide a definition for this entity, termed 'long COVID'. METHODS: We performed a search of the literature on studies addressing epidemiology, symptoms, assessment, and treatment of long COVID. The recommendations were grouped by these headings and by organ systems for assessment and treatment. An expert opinion definition of long COVID is provided. Symptoms were reviewed by a search of the available literature. For assessment recommendations, we aimed to perform a diagnostic meta-analysis, but no studies provided relevant results. For treatment recommendations we performed a systematic review of the literature in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We aimed to evaluate patient-related outcomes, including quality of life, return to baseline physical activity, and return to work. Quality assessment of studies included in the systematic review is provided according to study design. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence was insufficient to provide any recommendation other than conditional guidance. The panel recommends considering routine blood tests, chest imaging, and pulmonary functions tests for patients with persistent respiratory symptoms at 3 months. Other tests should be performed mainly to exclude other conditions according to symptoms. For management, no evidence-based recommendations could be provided. Physical and respiratory rehabilitation should be considered. On the basis of limited evidence, the panel suggests designing high-quality prospective clinical studies/trials, including a control group, to further evaluate the assessment and management of individuals with persistent symptoms of COVID-19.

How to interpret and use COVID-19 serology and immunology tests.

BACKGROUND: Although molecular tests are considered the reference standard for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostics, serological and immunological tests may be useful in specific settings. OBJECTIVES: This review summarizes the underlying principles and performance of COVID-19 serological and immunological testing. SOURCES: Selected peer-reviewed publications on COVID-19 related serology and immunology published between December 2019 and March 2021. CONTENT: Serological tests are highly specific but heterogeneous in their sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For certain indications, including delayed disease presentations, serological tests can have added value. The presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 may indicate a recent or past COVID-19 infection. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) antibody tests have the advantages of being easy and fast to perform, but many have a low sensitivity in acute settings. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) have higher sensitivities. Besides humoral immunity, cellular immunity is also essential for successful host defences against viruses. Enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) assays can be used to measure T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2. The presence of cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in never exposed patients suggests the possibility of cellular immunity induced by other circulating coronaviruses. T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 have also been detected in recovered COVID-19 patients with no detectable antibodies. IMPLICATIONS: Serological and immunological tests are primarily applied for population-based seroprevalence studies to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 control measures and increase our understanding of the immunology behind COVID-19. Combining molecular diagnostics with serological tests may optimize the detection of COVID-19. As not all infected patients will develop antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, assessment of cellular immunity may provide complementary information on whether a patient has been previously infected with COVID-19. More studies are needed to understand the correlations of these serological and immunological parameters with protective immunity, taking into account the different circulating virus variants.

Update in Viral Infections in the Intensive Care Unit.

The advent of highly sensitive molecular diagnostic techniques has improved our ability to detect viral pathogens leading to severe and often fatal infections that require admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Viral infections in the ICU have pleomorphic clinical presentations including pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory failure, central or peripheral nervous system manifestations, and viral-induced shock. Besides de novo infections, certain viruses fall into latency and can be reactivated in both immunosuppressed and immunocompetent critically ill patients. Depending on the viral strain, transmission occurs either directly through contact with infectious materials and large droplets, or indirectly through suspended air particles (airborne transmission of droplet nuclei). Many viruses can efficiently spread within hospital environment leading to in-hospital outbreaks, sometimes with high rates of mortality and morbidity, thus infection control measures are of paramount importance. Despite the advances in detecting viral pathogens, limited progress has been made in antiviral treatments, contributing to unexpectedly high rates of unfavorable outcomes. Herein, we review the most updated data on epidemiology, common clinical features, diagnosis, pathogenesis, treatment and prevention of severe community- and hospital-acquired viral infections in the ICU settings.