Recent Advances in Understanding SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Updates on Potential Diagnostic and Therapeutics for COVID-19

A more focused approach is needed to understand the SARS-CoV-2 virulence, structure, and genomics to devise more effective diagnostic and treatment interventions as this virus can evade the immune attack and causes life-threatening complications such as cytokine storm. The spread of the virus is still amplifying and causing thousands of new cases worldwide. It is essential to review current diagnostics and treatment approaches to pave the way to correct or modify our current practices to make more effective interventions against COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccine development has moved at a breakneck pace since the outbreak began, utilizing practically all possible platforms or tactics to ensure the success of vaccines. A total of 42 vaccine candidates have already entered clinical trials, including promising results from numerous vaccine candidates in phase 1 or phase 2 trials. Further, many existing drugs are being explored on broad-spectrum antiviral medications for their use in clinical recovery against COVID-19. The present review attempts to re-examine the SARS-CoV-2 structure, its viral life cycle, clinical symptoms and pathogenesis, mode of transmission, diagnostics, and treatment strategies that may be useful for resorting to more effective approaches for controlling COVID-19. Various antiviral drugs and vaccination strategies with their strengths and weaknesses are also discussed in the paper to augment our understanding of COVID-19 management.Copyright © 2022 Bentham Science Publishers.

Biomarkers, tools, and test kits for COVID-19

Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be the biggest challenge to man, claiming over 600,000 lives within 7 months. Various diagnostic kits for COVID-19 have emerged which is important in keeping track of the escalation of the disease. The World Health Organization has implored health agencies time and again to make the test for the novel coronavirus a top priority in their response to the pandemic. Another most challenging task of COVID-19 is to identify asymptomatic cases which silently spread virus to close contacts and become the super spreader. Hence rapid diagnosing, identifying the positive cases, and quarantining are the only ways to prevent the pandemic outbreak. This chapter highlights the different possible diagnostic tests for COVID-19 with their errors in prediction and future directions. © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Samples: Target-specific Analysis of Qualitative Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction(RT-PCR) Diagnostic Kits.

INTRODUCTION: The Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) led to the rise of many available modalities for diagnosis. One such modality is the Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) kits which require evaluation amongst the many available commercial kits in the market. METHODS: We conducted a performance evaluation of twelve RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 commercial kits. A total of 75 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal clinical samples were selected with their cycling threshold (Ct) values. Inclusion of 5 gene targets: E gene, N gene, S gene, RdRp and ORF1ab were assessed. Data was analyzed using R software version 4.1.1 and Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: We observe that, the positive sample's Ct values differs significantly across the 12 diagnostic kits. However, for gene-specific analysis, we observe that, positive sample's Ct values does not differ significantly across gene targets. There is significant difference in Ct values in Commercial kits targeting all genes except S-gene. All the commercial kits Altona (E and S genes), Thermo (ORF1ab and N genes), Multiplex (E, ORF1ab, RdRdp genes), Meril (N and ORF1ab genes), S D Biosensor (E and ORF1ab genes), Lab Gun (RdRp and N genes) and Lab systems (ORF1ab and E genes) scored a sensitivity of 100%. All other kits scored sensitivity above 95% and lowest sensitivity with the Genes2me (E gene) and Genes2me (RdRp) at 95.08% each. All kits were 100% specific. CONCLUSION: This study provides an accurate comprehensive assessment of the different kits in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 which may promote standardization of testing across laboratories.

Clinical diagnostic performance evaluation of five immunoassays for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in a real-life routine care setting.

While molecular techniques remain the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, serological tests have the unique potential to ascertain how much of the population has been exposed to the COVID-19 pathogen. There have been limited published studies to date documenting the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays in Nigeria and so we evaluated the diagnostic performance of five (5) immunoassay on a set of clinical samples. Five automated immunoassays (2019-nCoV IgG/IgM antibody determination kit, Tigsun COVID-19 combo IgM/IgG rapid test, rapid response COVID-19 IgG/IgM test, COVID-19 IgM-IgG combined antibody rapid test, iChroma COVID-19 Ab) were tested. Three hundred and fourteen specimens were analyzed from health care workers who tested positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms consistent with SARS-CoV-2 receiving treatment at two treatment centres in Nasarawa State from March to September, 2020 with control of 134 health care workers who tested negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 with no symptoms to SARS-CoV-2. The median patients' age was 40 years (IQR 39.8-41), majority were male and were on admission. The SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM antibody evaluated kits had a sensitivity of 33% (2019-nCoV IgG/IgM antibody determination kit), 22% (Tigsun COVID-19 combo IgM/IgG rapid test), 43% (rapid response COVID-19 IgG/IgM test), 44% (COVID-19 IgM-IgG combined antibody rapid test), 25% (iChroma COVID-19 Ab), 100% sensitivity, accuracy of 68.5% and Kappa coefficient of 0.7 and rapid response COVID-19 IgG/IgM test cassette had a sensitivity of 33%, specificity of 100% and accuracy of 72.5% with Kappa coefficient 0.7. The Tigsun COVID-19 combo IgM/IgG rapid test (lateral flow), positive, COVID-19 IgM-IgG combined antibody rapid test and iChroma COVID-19 Ab RT all had sensitivity of zero percent. Serology was complementary to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 at least 14 days after onset of symptoms. The assay panel needs to be improved to serve as an option for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in resource constrained settings where there are limited molecular diagnostics testing panels.

Quick overview of diagnostic kits and smartphone apps for urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic: a narrative review.

The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented event that has caused incredible challenges in all areas of society. However, unlike previous global pandemics, modern advancements in technology and medicine have made it possible to respond much more rapidly. Within months, countries around the world developed diagnostic kits and smartphone applications to tackle the virus. Many of these diagnostic kits vary in what they target and have different uses. Smartphone applications have been developed to provide real-time information to users regarding potential exposure, statistics, updated news, etc. Depending on the country, resources and government policies have created a wide range of products and applications. This narrative review paper focuses on providing a general overview of diagnostic kits and smartphone applications in three major countries, the U.S., South Korea, and China. Smartphone applications were used for tracing person-to-person contact and preventing the spread of COVID-19. These tools allowed public health officials to quickly identify people who may have had exposure to COVID-19 and allows them to act accordingly. In addition to discussing the mechanisms behind diagnostic kits, topics in legislation and policy for contact tracing will also be discussed. As nations enter into the next phase of the pandemic, there are serious considerations to be made about how technology can be integrated into handling future healthcare crises.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in fecal samples with different pretreatment methods and PCR kits.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in COVID-19 patients and SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in the patients' feces, which could lead to fecal-oral transmission. Therefore, fecal sample testing with real-time RT-PCR is highly recommended as a routine test for SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, varying rates of detection in fecal sample have been reported. The aim of this study was to provide insights into the detection rates of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients' fecal sample by using four real-time RT-PCR kits and two pretreatment methods (inactive and non-inactive). RESULTS: The detection rate of Trizol pretreatment group was slightly higher than that of Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) groups, showing that pretreatment and inactivation by Trizol had no influence to SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (NAT) results. 39.29% detection rate in fecal sample by DAAN was obtained, while Bio-germ was 40.48%, Sansure 34.52%, and GeneoDx 33.33%. The former three kits had no significant difference. The DAAN kit detection rates of ORF1ab and N gene were nearly equal and Ct value distribution was more scattered, while the Bio-germ kit distribution was more clustered. The positive rate of SARS-COV-2 in fecal samples correlated with the severity of the disease, specifically, severe cases were less likely to be identified than asymptomatic infection in the DAAN group (adjusted OR 0.05, 95%CI = 0.00 ~ 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Trizol should be of choice as a valid and safe method for pretreatment of fecal samples of SARS-CoV-2. All real-time RT-PCR kits assessed in this study can be used for routine detection of SARS-CoV-2 in fecal samples. While DAAN, with high NAT positive rate, could be the best out of the 4 kits used in this study. SARS-CoV-2 positive rate in fecal sample was related to the severity of illness.

OUTBREAK of novel corona virus disease (COVID-19): Antecedence and aftermath.

Outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) started in mid of December 2019 and spread very rapidly across the globe within a month of its outbreak. Researchers all across the globe started working to find out its possible treatments. However, most of initiatives taken were based on various hypotheses and till date no successful treatments have been achieved. Some strategies adopted by China where existing antiviral therapy was initially used to treat COVID-19 have not given very successful results. Researchers from Thailand explored the use of combination of anti-influenza drugs such as Oseltamivir, Lopinavir and Ritonavir to treat it. In some cases, combination therapy of antiviral drugs with chloroquine showed better action against COVID-19. Some of the clinical studies showed very good effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19, however, they were not recommended due to serious clinical toxicity. In some cases, use of rho kinase inhibitor, fasudil was found very effective. In some of the countries, antibody-based therapies have proved fairly successful. The use of BCG vaccines came in light; however, they were not found successful due to lack of full-proof mechanistic studies. In Israel as well as in other developed countries, pluristems allogeneic placental expanded cell therapy has been found successful. Some phytochemicals and nutraceuticals have also been explored to treat it. In a recent report, the use of dexamethasone was found very effective in patients suffering from COVID-19. Its effect was most striking among patients on ventilator. The research for vaccines that can prevent the disease is still going on. In light of the dynamic trends, present review focuses on etiopathogenesis, factors associated with spreading of the virus, and possible strategies to treat this deadly infection. In addition, it attempts to compile the recent updates on development of drugs and vaccines for the dreaded disease.

How should diagnostic kits development adapt quickly in COVID 19-like pandemic models? Pros and cons of sensory platforms used in COVID-19 sensing.

As COVID-19 has reached pandemic status and the number of cases continues to grow, widespread availability of diagnostic testing is critical in helping identify and control the emergence of this rapidly spreading and serious illness. However, a lacking in making a quick reaction to the threat and starting early development of diagnostic sensing tools has had an important impact globally. In this regard, here we will review critically the current developed diagnostic tools in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and compare the different types through the discussion of their pros and cons such as nucleic acid detection tests (including PCR and CRISPR), antibody and protein-based diagnosis tests. In addition, potential technologies that are under development such as on-site diagnosis platforms, lateral flow, and portable PCR units are discussed. Data collection and epidemiological analysis could also be an interesting factor to incorporate with the emerging technologies especially with the wide access to smartphones. Lastly, a SWOT analysis and perspectives on how the development of novel sensory platforms should be treated by the different decision-makers are analyzed.