A study of Real-Time Non-invasive Detection Techniques to Identify COVID-19 contagious person

The whole world has witnessed the global pandemic situation caused and hampered very badly due to COVID-19. We had seen the adverse effect globally, in terms of health, economy, social lifestyle. So, it's an urgent need to find a rapid detection technique/test to avoid the spread of the virus. The most effective and world-wide accepted detection method of COVID-19 is the RT-PCR. But due to its slow detection time and False-negative rates, researchers and scientists are trying different detection methods such as use of GC-MS, E-nose, Electrochemical method, use of nanomaterial-based sensor arrays. But all these have limitations in terms of real time sensing, detection time, sample preparation, etc. In order to overcome said drawbacks and to get real-time analysis, we are proposing a concept for COVID-19 detection based on the reported literature. As per recent advancement researchers have evident the presence of VOCs in COVID-19 infected person's breath by GC-MS method. A real time system is very much necessary to detect the VOCs in the Exhaled breath of the COVID-19 infected person to minimize the burden of healthcare system. In this article we will discuss and propose the probable detection techniques for real time sensing of the VOCs presence in the Exhaled breath of the COVID-19 infected person. © Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd.

The screening value of RT-LAMP and RT-PCR in the diagnosis of COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the test accuracy of reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We comprehensively searched PUBMED, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System until September 1, 2021. We included clinical studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR and RT-LAMP using respiratory samples. Thirty-three studies were included with 9360 suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The RT-PCR or other comprehensive diagnostic method was defined as the reference method. The results showed that the overall pooled sensitivity of RT-PCR and RT-LAMP was 0.96 (95 % CI, 0.93-0.98) and 0.92 (95 % CI, 0.85-0.96), respectively. RT-PCR and RT-LAMP had a 0.06 (95 % CI, 0.04-0.08) and 0.12 (95 % CI, 0.06-0.16) false-negative rates (FNR), respectively. Moreover, subgroup analysis showed mixed sampling and multiple target gene diagnosis methods had better diagnostic value than single-site sampling and a single target gene. The sensitivity and FNR were also significantly affected by the reference method. Comparing RT-LAMP with established suboptimal RT-PCR may exaggerate the performance of RT-LAMP. RT-PCR and RT-LAMP showed high values in the diagnosis of COVID-19, but there was still a FNR of about 6%-12%.

Time variation in the probability of failing to detect a case of polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2 as estimated from a viral dynamics model.

Viral tests including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are recommended to diagnose COVID-19 infection during the acute phase of infection. A test should have high sensitivity; however, the sensitivity of the PCR test is highly influenced by viral load, which changes over time. Because it is difficult to collect data before the onset of symptoms, the current literature on the sensitivity of the PCR test before symptom onset is limited. In this study, we used a viral dynamics model to track the probability of failing to detect a case of PCR testing over time, including the presymptomatic period. The model was parametrized by using longitudinal viral load data collected from 30 hospitalized patients. The probability of failing to detect a case decreased toward symptom onset, and the lowest probability was observed 2 days after symptom onset and increased afterwards. The probability on the day of symptom onset was 1.0% (95% CI: 0.5 to 1.9) and that 2 days before symptom onset was 60.2% (95% CI: 57.1 to 63.2). Our study suggests that the diagnosis of COVID-19 by PCR testing should be done carefully, especially when the test is performed before or way after symptom onset. Further study is needed of patient groups with potentially different viral dynamics, such as asymptomatic cases.

An Online Calculator to Better Understand the Impact of False-Negative COVID-19 Polymerase Chain Reaction Test Results in the Context of Anesthesia Providers.

What does the COVID-19 false-negative exposure problem mean in the context of a local anesthesia practice? We present a customizable online calculator designed to quantify and better understand individual and aggregate provider exposure risk.

False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is diagnosed via detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using real time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR). Performance of many SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR assays is not entirely known due to the lack of a gold standard. We sought to evaluate the false negative rate (FNR) and sensitivity of our laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR targeting the envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) genes. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR results at the Public Health Laboratory (Alberta, Canada) from January 21 to April 18, 2020 were reviewed to identify patients with an initial negative rtRT-PCR followed by a positive result on repeat testing within 14 days (defined as discordant results). Negative samples from these discordant specimens were re-tested using three alternate rtRT-PCR assays (targeting the E gene and N1/N2 regions of the nucleocapsid genes) to assess for false negative (FN) results. RESULTS: During the time period specified, 95,919 patients (100,001 samples) were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 49 patients were found to have discordant results including 49 positive and 52 negative swabs. Repeat testing of 52 negative swabs found five FNs (from five separate patients). Assuming 100% specificity of the diagnostic assay, the FNR and sensitivity in this group of patients with discordant testing was 9.3% (95% CI 1.5-17.0%) and 90.7% (95% CI 82.6-98.9%) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Studies to understand the FNR of routinely used assays are important to confirm adequate clinical performance. In this study, most FN results were due to low amounts of SARS-CoV-2 virus concentrations in patients with multiple specimens collected during different stages of infection. Post-test clinical evaluation of each patient is advised to ensure that rtRT-PCR results are not the only factor in excluding COVID-19.

Patterns of repeated diagnostic testing for COVID-19 in relation to patient characteristics and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Whilst the COVID-19 diagnostic test has a high false-negative rate, not everyone initially negative is re-tested. Michigan Medicine, a primary regional centre, provided an ideal setting for studying testing patterns during the first wave of the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To identify the characteristics of patients who underwent repeated testing for COVID-19 and determine if repeated testing was associated with downstream outcomes amongst positive cases. METHODS: Characteristics, test results, and health outcomes for patients presenting for a COVID-19 diagnostic test were collected. We examined whether patient characteristics differed with repeated testing and estimated a false-negative rate for the test. We then studied repeated testing patterns in patients with severe COVID-19-related outcomes. RESULTS: Patient age, sex, body mass index, neighbourhood poverty levels, pre-existing type 2 diabetes, circulatory, kidney, and liver diseases, and cough, fever/chills, and pain symptoms 14 days prior to a first test were associated with repeated testing. Amongst patients with a positive result, age (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: (1.05, 1.34)) and pre-existing kidney diseases (OR: 2.26; 95% CI: (1.41, 3.68)) remained significant. Hospitalization (OR: 7.88; 95% CI: (5.15, 12.26)) and ICU-level care (OR: 6.93; 95% CI: (4.44, 10.92)) were associated with repeated testing. The estimated false-negative rate was 23.8% (95% CI: (19.5%, 28.5%)). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst most patients were tested once and received a negative result, a meaningful subset underwent multiple rounds of testing. These results shed light on testing patterns and have important implications for understanding the variation of repeated testing results within and between patients.

When to rule out COVID-19: How many negative RT-PCR tests are needed?

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians have been plagued with dilemmas related to the uncertainty about diagnostic testing for the virus. It has become commonplace for a patient under investigation (PUI) to repeatedly test negative but have imaging findings that are consistent with COVID-19. This raises the question of when the treating team should entertain alternative diagnoses. We present such a case to help provide a framework for how to weigh repeatedly negative test results in clinical decision making when there is ongoing concern for COVID-19.