Question: what types of rapid testing for Covid-19 have been developed?

Title: Current and emerging diagnostic tests available for the novel COVID-19 global pandemic Content: On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) upgraded the status of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak from epidemic to a global pandemic. This infection is caused by a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. Several rapid diagnostic tests have been developed at an astonishing pace; however, COVID-19 requires more highly specific rapid point-of-care diagnostic tests. This review describes the currently available testing approaches, as well as the available test assays including the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test (takes (~)45 min) and Abbott ID COVID-19 test (5 min) as easy to use point-of-care tests for diagnosis of novel COVID-19 that have so far received the US Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorizations clearance. This review is correct as of the date published and will be updated as more diagnostic tests come to light.

Title: Point-of-Care Diagnostic Tests for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Data Content: SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for a highly contagious infection, known as COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in late December 2019 and, since then, has become a global pandemic. Timely and accurate COVID-19 laboratory testing is an essential step in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. To date, assays based on the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in respiratory samples are the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. Unfortunately, RT-PCR has several practical limitations. Consequently, alternative diagnostic methods are urgently required, both for alleviating the pressure on laboratories and healthcare facilities and for expanding testing capacity to enable large-scale screening and ensure a timely therapeutic intervention. To date, few studies have been conducted concerning the potential utilization of rapid testing for COVID-19, with some conflicting results. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to explore the feasibility of rapid diagnostic tests in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. Based on ten studies, we computed a pooled sensitivity of 64.8% (95%CI 54.5–74.0), and specificity of 98.0% (95%CI 95.8–99.0), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. We can conclude that: (1) rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are necessary, but should be adequately sensitive and specific; (2) few studies have been carried out to date; (3) the studies included are characterized by low numbers and low sample power, and (4) in light of these results, the use of available tests is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more reliable molecular tests, such as assays based on RT-PCR.

Title: Point-of-Care Diagnostic Tests for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Data Content: SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for a highly contagious infection, known as COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in late December 2019 and, since then, has become a global pandemic. Timely and accurate COVID-19 laboratory testing is an essential step in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. To date, assays based on the reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in respiratory samples are the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. Unfortunately, RT-PCR has several practical limitations. Consequently, alternative diagnostic methods are urgently required, both for alleviating the pressure on laboratories and healthcare facilities and for expanding testing capacity to enable large-scale screening and ensure a timely therapeutic intervention. To date, few studies have been conducted concerning the potential utilization of rapid testing for COVID-19, with some conflicting results. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to explore the feasibility of rapid diagnostic tests in the management of the COVID-19 outbreak. Based on ten studies, we computed a pooled sensitivity of 64.8% (95%CI 54.5-74.0), and specificity of 98.0% (95%CI 95.8-99.0), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. We can conclude that: (1) rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are necessary, but should be adequately sensitive and specific; (2) few studies have been carried out to date; (3) the studies included are characterized by low numbers and low sample power, and (4) in light of these results, the use of available tests is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more reliable molecular tests, such as assays based on RT-PCR.

Title: Real-time PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 detection in Canadian laboratories Content: With emergence of pandemic COVID-19, rapid and accurate diagnostic testing is essential. This study compared laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Canadian hospital and public health laboratories, and some commercially available real-time RT-PCR assays. Overall, analytical sensitivities were equivalent between LDTs and most commercially available methods.

Title: Real-time PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 detection in Canadian Laboratories Content: With emergence of pandemic COVID-19, rapid and accurate diagnostic testing is essential. This study compared laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Canadian hospital and public health laboratories, and some commercially available real-time RT-PCR assays. Overall, analytical sensitivities were equivalent between LDTs and most commercially available methods.

Title: ¿Conocemos las propiedades diagnósticas de las pruebas usadas en COVID-19? Una revisión rápida de la literatura recientemente publicada./ ¿Conocemos las propiedades diagnósticas de las pruebas usadas en COVID-19? Una revisión rápida de la literatura recientemente publicada./ Do we know the diagnostic properties of the tests used in COVID-19? A rapid review of recently published literature Content: COVID-19 has brought death and disease to large parts of the world. Governments must deploy strategies to screen the population and subsequently isolate the suspect cases. Diagnostic testing is critical for epidemiological surveillance, but the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) and clinical utility (impact on health outcomes) of the current diagnostic methods used for SARS-CoV-2 detection are not known. I ran a quick search in PubMed/MEDLINE to find studies on laboratory diagnostic tests and rapid viral diagnosis. After running the search strategies, I found 47 eligible articles that I discuss in this review, commenting on test characteristics and limitations. I did not find any papers that report on the clinical utility of the tests currently used for COVID-19 detection, meaning that we are fighting a battle without proper knowledge of the proportion of false negatives that current testing is resulting in. This shortcoming should not be overlooked as it might hamper national efforts to contain the pandemic through testing community-based suspect cases.

Title: Do we know the diagnostic properties of the tests used in COVID-19? A rapid review of recently published literature. Content: COVID-19 has brought death and disease to large parts of the world. Governments must deploy strategies to screen the population and subsequently isolate the suspect cases. Diagnostic testing is critical for epidemiological surveillance, but the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) and clinical utility (impact on health outcomes) of the current diagnostic methods used for SARS-CoV-2 detection are not known. I ran a quick search in PubMed/MEDLINE to find studies on laboratory diagnostic tests and rapid viral diagnosis. After running the search strategies, I found 47 eligible articles that I discuss in this review, commenting on test characteristics and limitations. I did not find any papers that report on the clinical utility of the tests currently used for COVID-19 detection, meaning that we are fighting a battle without proper knowledge of the proportion of false negatives that current testing is resulting in. This shortcoming should not be overlooked as it might hamper national efforts to contain the pandemic through testing community-based suspect cases.

Title: Laboratory Testing Methods for Novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Content: Following the first reports of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) by China to the World Health Organization (WHO) on 31st December 2019, more than 4,302,774 novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) cases have been reported by authorities in 212 countries and territories by 12th May 2020. The outbreak and spread of COVID-19 worldwide, highlights the critical need for developing rapid and accurate diagnostic testing methods for emerging human coronavirus (CoV) infections. Testing is crucial to track the spread of disease during a pandemic, and to swiftly permit public health interventions including isolation, quarantine, and appropriate clinical management of afflicted individuals. The key components of viral diagnostic tests are (1) collection of the appropriate sample (blood, nasal swab, and throat swab), (2) availability of the genetic and proteomic sequences of the novel virus for analysis, and (3) rapid and accurate laboratory testing methods. The current gold standard for the molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the qualitative and quantitative detection of viral nucleic acids. Other relevant laboratory methods include enzyme-linked immunoassays (EIA) for viral antibody and antigen detection, and serum viral neutralization (SVN) assays for antibody neutralization determination. The challenges faced in developing a diagnostic test for a novel pathogen are the ability to measure low viral loads for early detection, to provide low or no cross-reactivity with other viral strains and to deliver results rapidly. Several point-of-care molecular devices are currently being integrated for fast and accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. This review discusses the current laboratory methods available to test for coronaviruses by focusing on the present COVID-19 outbreak.

Title: Combining Point-of-Care Diagnostics and Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) to Combat the COVID-19 Pandemic Content: The current standard testing method for screening coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is through reverse real-time PCR assay (rRT-PCR), a common molecular-based assay that requires an average of four to six hours to provide results [...].

Title: Types of Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Testing: A Review Content: Clinical laboratory testing routinely provides actionable results, which help direct patient care in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Since December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has been causing disease (COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019]) in patients, beginning in China and now extending worldwide. In this context of a novel viral pandemic, clinical laboratories have developed multiple novel assays for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and for managing patients afflicted with this illness. These include molecular and serologic-based tests, some with point-of-care testing capabilities. Herein, we present an overview of the types of testing available for managing patients with COVID-19, as well as for screening of potential plasma donors who have recovered from COVID-19.

Title: Types of Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Testing: A Review. Content: Clinical laboratory testing routinely provides actionable results, which help direct patient care in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Since December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has been causing disease (COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019]) in patients, beginning in China and now extending worldwide. In this context of a novel viral pandemic, clinical laboratories have developed multiple novel assays for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and for managing patients afflicted with this illness. These include molecular and serologic-based tests, some with point-of-care testing capabilities. Herein, we present an overview of the types of testing available for managing patients with COVID-19, as well as for screening of potential plasma donors who have recovered from COVID-19.

Title: Rapid development of COVID-19 rapid diagnostics for low resource settings: accelerating delivery through transparency, responsiveness, and open collaboration Content: In January, Mologic, embarked on a product development pathway for COVID-19 diagnostics focusing on ELISA and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), with anticipated funding from Wellcome Trust and DFID. 755 clinical samples from known COVID-19 patients and hospital negative controls were tested on Mologics IgG ELISA. The reported sensitivity on 191 SGUL prospectively enrolled patients was 95% on day 7 or more post diagnosis, and 97% 10 days or more post-diagnosis. A specificity panel comprising 564 samples pre-December 2019 were tested to include most common respiratory pathogens, other types of coronavirus, and flaviviruses. Specificity in this panel was 97%. This is the first in a series of Mologic products for COVID-19, which will be deployed for COVID-19 diagnosis, contact tracing and sero-epidemiological studies to estimate disease burden and transmission with a focus on ensuring access, affordability, and availability to lowest resource settings.

Title: Diagnostic Performance of a Rapid Point of Care Test for SARS-CoV-2 in an Urban ED Setting Content: The ability to rapidly and accurately identify a patient's COVID-19 status has had significant impact on emergency departments (ED) and health systems globally. Since the identification of SARS-CoV-2 illness in the United States, there has been rapid development in patient testing capacity following initial challenges including sparse availability. This was made possible by increasing availability of diagnostic molecular tests in several formats, from laboratory based traditional, RT-PCR methods to near patient testing rapid point of care PCR tests.

Title: A Single and Two-Stage, Closed-Tube, Molecular Test for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) at Home, Clinic, and Points of Entry. Content: The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is a newly emerged strain that has never been found in humans before. At present, the laboratory-based reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the main method to confirm COVID-19 infection. The intensification of the COVID-19 epidemic overwhelms limited clinical resources in particular, but not only, in developing countries, resulting in many patients not being tested for the infection and in large queues of potentially infected individuals waiting to be tested while providing a breeding ground for the disease. We describe here a rapid, highly sensitive, point-of-care, molecular test amenable for use at home, in the clinic, and at points of entry by minimally trained individuals and with minimal instrumentation. Our test is based on loop mediated isothermal amplification (COVID-19 LAMP) and for higher sensitivity on nested nucleic acid, two stage isothermal amplification (COVID-19 Penn-RAMP). Both tests can be carried out in closed tubes with either fluorescence or colorimetric (e.g., leuco crystal violet LCV) detection. COVID-19 LAMP performs on par with COVID-19 RT-PCR. COVID-19 RAMP has 10 fold better sensitivity than COVID-19 LAMP and COVID-19 RT-PCR when testing purified targets and 100 times better sensitivity than COVID-19 LAMP and COVID-19 RT-PCR when testing rapidly prepared sample mimics. Due to fortunate scarcity of COVID-19 infections in the USA, we were not able to test our assays and methods with patient samples. We hope that such tests will be carried out by colleagues in impacted countries. Our Closed-Tube Penn-RAMP has the potential to significantly reduce false negatives while being amenable to use with minimal instrumentation and training.

Title: Overcoming the bottleneck to widespread testing: A rapid review of nucleic acid testing approaches for COVID-19 detection. Content: The current COVID-19 pandemic presents a serious public health crisis, and a better understanding of the scope and spread of the virus would be aided by more widespread testing. Nucleic-acid based tests currently offer the most sensitive and early detection of COVID-19. However, the "gold standard" test pioneered by the United States Center for Disease Control & Prevention, takes several hours to complete and requires extensive human labor, materials such as RNA extraction kits that could become in short supply and relatively scarce qPCR machines. It is clear that a huge effort needs to be made to scale up current COVID-19 testing by orders of magnitude. There is thus a pressing need to evaluate alternative protocols, reagents, and approaches to allow nucleic-acid testing to continue in the face of these potential shortages. There has been a tremendous explosion in the number of papers written within the first weeks of the pandemic evaluating potential advances, comparable reagents, and alternatives to the "gold-standard" CDC RT-PCR test. Here we present a collection of these recent advances in COVID-19 nucleic acid testing, including both peer-reviewed and preprint articles. Due to the rapid developments during this crisis, we have included as many publications as possible, but many of the cited sources have not yet been peer-reviewed, so we urge researchers to further validate results in their own labs. We hope that this review can urgently consolidate and disseminate information to aid researchers in designing and implementing optimized COVID-19 testing protocols to increase the availability, accuracy, and speed of widespread COVID-19 testing.

Title: In Vitro Diagnostic Assays for COVID-19: Recent Advances and Emerging Trends Content: There have been tremendous advances in in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assays for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The main IVD assays used for COVID-19 employ real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) that takes a few hours. But the assay duration has been shortened to 45 min by Cepheid. Of interest is the point-of-care (POC) molecular assay by Abbott that decreased the assay duration to just 5 min. Most molecular tests have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under emergency use authorization (EUA) and are Conformité Européenne (CE) marked. A wide range of serology immunoassays (IAs) have also been developed that complement the molecular assays for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The most prominent IAs are automated chemiluminescent IA (CLIA), manual ELISA, and rapid lateral flow IA (LFIA), which detect the immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) produced in persons in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The ongoing research efforts and advances in complementary technologies will pave the way to new POC IVD assays in the coming months. However, the performance of IVD assays needs to be critically evaluated before they are employed for the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19.

Title: RT-qPCR Testing of SARS-CoV-2: A Primer Content: Testing for the presence of coronavirus is an essential diagnostic tool for monitoring and managing the current COVID-19 pandemic. The only reliable test in current use for testing acute infection targets the genome of SARS-CoV-2, and the most widely used method is quantitative fluorescence-based reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Despite its ubiquity, there is a significant amount of uncertainty about how this test works, potential throughput and reliability. This has resulted in widespread misrepresentation of the problems faced using this test during the current COVID-19 epidemic. This primer provides simple, straightforward and impartial information about RT-qPCR.

Title: Overcoming the bottleneck to widespread testing: a rapid review of nucleic acid testing approaches for COVID-19 detection Content: The current COVID-19 pandemic presents a serious public health crisis, and a better understanding of the scope and spread of the virus would be aided by more widespread testing. Nucleic-acid-based tests currently offer the most sensitive and early detection of COVID-19. However, the "gold standard" test pioneered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention takes several hours to complete and requires extensive human labor, materials such as RNA extraction kits that could become in short supply, and relatively scarce qPCR machines. It is clear that a huge effort needs to be made to scale up current COVID-19 testing by orders of magnitude. There is thus a pressing need to evaluate alternative protocols, reagents, and approaches to allow nucleic-acid testing to continue in the face of these potential shortages. There has been a tremendous explosion in the number of papers written within the first weeks of the pandemic evaluating potential advances, comparable reagents, and alternatives to the "gold-standard" CDC RT-PCR test. Here we present a collection of these recent advances in COVID-19 nucleic acid testing, including both peer-reviewed and preprint articles. Due to the rapid developments during this crisis, we have included as many publications as possible, but many of the cited sources have not yet been peer-reviewed, so we urge researchers to further validate results in their own laboratories. We hope that this review can urgently consolidate and disseminate information to aid researchers in designing and implementing optimized COVID-19 testing protocols to increase the availability, accuracy, and speed of widespread COVID-19 testing.

Title: Assay Techniques and Test Development for COVID-19 Diagnosis Content: An ongoing theme of the COVID-19 pandemic is the need for widespread availability of accurate and eﬃcient diagnostic testing for detection of SARS-CoV-2 and antiviral antibodies in infected individuals. This report describes various assay techniques and tests for COVID-19 diagnosis. Most tests for early detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA rely on the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, but isothermal nucleic acid ampliﬁcation assays, including transcription-mediated ampliﬁcation and CRISPR-based methodologies, are promising alternatives. Identiﬁcation of individuals who have developed antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus requires serological tests, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and lateral ﬂow immunoassay. This report also provides an overview of current development in COVID-19 diagnostic techniques and products to facilitate future improvement and innovation.

Title: COVID-19 diagnostics in context Content: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the need for different types of diagnostics, comparative validation of new tests, faster approval by federal agencies, and rapid production of test kits to meet global demands. In this Perspective, we discuss the utility and challenges of current diagnostics for COVID-19.

Title: COVID-19 diagnostics in context. Content: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the need for different types of diagnostics, comparative validation of new tests, faster approval by federal agencies, and rapid production of test kits to meet global demands. In this Perspective, we discuss the utility and challenges of current diagnostics for COVID-19.

Title: COVID-19 Special Column: Principles Behind the Technology for Detecting SARS-CoV-2, the Cause of COVID-19 Content: Nationwide shortages of tests that detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have led the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to significantly relax regulations regarding COVID-19 diagnostic testing. To date the FDA has given emergency use authorization (EUA) to 48 COVID-19 in vitro diagnostic tests and 21 high complexity molecular-based laboratory developed tests, as well as implemented policies that give broad authority to clinical laboratories and commercial manufacturers in the development, distribution, and use of COVID-19 diagnostic tests. Currently, there are 2 types of diagnostic tests available for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: (1) molecular and (2) serological tests. Molecular detection of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) sequences relating to the suspected pathogen is indicative of an active infection with the suspected pathogen. Serological tests detect antibodies against the suspected pathogen, which are produced by an individual's immune system. A positive serological test result indicates recent exposure to the suspected pathogen but cannot be used to determine if the individual is actively infected with the pathogen or immune to reinfection. In this article, the SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests currently approved by the FDA under EUA are reviewed, and other diagnostic tests that researchers are developing to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection are discussed.

Title: COVID-19 Special Column: Principles Behind the Technology for Detecting SARS-CoV-2, the Cause of COVID-19. Content: Nationwide shortages of tests that detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have led the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to significantly relax regulations regarding COVID-19 diagnostic testing. To date the FDA has given emergency use authorization (EUA) to 48 COVID-19 in vitro diagnostic tests and 21 high complexity molecular-based laboratory developed tests, as well as implemented policies that give broad authority to clinical laboratories and commercial manufacturers in the development, distribution, and use of COVID-19 diagnostic tests. Currently, there are 2 types of diagnostic tests available for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: (1) molecular and (2) serological tests. Molecular detection of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) sequences relating to the suspected pathogen is indicative of an active infection with the suspected pathogen. Serological tests detect antibodies against the suspected pathogen, which are produced by an individual's immune system. A positive serological test result indicates recent exposure to the suspected pathogen but cannot be used to determine if the individual is actively infected with the pathogen or immune to reinfection. In this article, the SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests currently approved by the FDA under EUA are reviewed, and other diagnostic tests that researchers are developing to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection are discussed.

Title: Evaluation of the Practicability of a Finger-Stick Whole-Blood SARS-Cov-2 Self-Test Adapted for the General Population. Content: Background COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019) is an infectious respiratory disease caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus. Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood and easily usable by the general population are needed in order to alleviate the lockdown that many countries have initiated in response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic. A real-life study has been conducted in order to evaluate the performance of the COVID-PRESTO RDT and the results have been submitted for publication and are currently under review. Even if this test showed very high sensitivity and specificity in a laboratory setting when used by trained professionals, it needs to be further evaluated for practicability when used by common folk in order to be approved by health authorities for in-home use Methods 142 participants were recruited between March 2020 and April 2020 among non-medical populations in central France (nuclear plants workers, individuals attending the Orleans University Hospital vaccination clinic and Orleans University Hospital non-medical staff). Instructions for use with or without a tutorial video was made available to the volunteers. Two separate objectives were pursued: evaluation of the capability of participants to obtain an interpretable result, and evaluation of the users ability to read the results. Results 88.4 % of the test users judged the instruction for use leaflet to be clear and understandable. 99.3 % of the users obtained a valid results and according to the supervisors 92.7% of the tests were properly performed by the user. Overall, 95% of the users gave positive feedback toward the COVID PRESTO as a potential self-test. No influence of age and education was observed. Conclusion COVID-PRESTO was successfully used by an overwhelming majority of participants and its utilization was judged very satisfactory, therefore showing a promising potential as a self-test to be used by the general population. This RDT can become an easy-to-use tool to help know whether individuals are protected or not, particularly in the perspective of a second wave or a mass vaccination program.

Title: Evaluation of performance of two SARS-CoV-2 Rapid whole-blood finger-stick IgM-IgGCombined Antibody Tests Content: Background The SARS-CoV-2 virus is responsible for the infectious respiratory disease called COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease). In response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic, Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood. We conducted a real-life study to evaluate the performance of two RDTs, COVID-PRESTO and COVID-DUO, compared to the gold standard, RT-PCR. Methods RT-PCR testing of SARS-Cov-2 was performed from nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected in adult patients visiting the infectious disease department at the hospital (Orleans, France). Fingertip whole blood samples taken at different time points after onset of the disease were tested with RDTs. The specificity and sensitivity of the rapid test kits compared to test of reference (RT-PCR) were calculated. Results Among 381 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who went to the hospital for a diagnostic, 143 patients were RT-PCR negative. Results of test with RDTs were all negative for these patients, indicating a specificity of 100% for both RDTs. In the RT-PCR positive subgroup (n=238), 133 patients were tested with COVID-PRESTO and 129 patients were tested with COVID-DUO (24 patients tested with both). The further the onset of symptoms was from the date of collection, the greater the sensitivity. The sensitivity of COVID-PRESTO test ranged from 10.00% for patients having experienced their 1st symptoms from 0 to 5 days ago to 100% in patients where symptoms had occurred more than 15 days before the date of tests. For COVID-DUO test, the sensitivity ranged from 35.71% [0-5 days] to 100% (> 15 days). Conclusion COVID-PRESTO and DUO RDTs turned out to be very specific (none false positive) and to be sensitive enough after 15 days from onset of symptom. These easy to use IgG/IgM combined test kits are the first ones allowing a screening with capillary blood sample, by typing from a finger prick. These rapid tests are particularly interesting for screening in low resource settings.

Title: FAST: a Feasible, Accurate and Speedy Test Strategy for COVID-19 Content: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues worldwide, there is an urgent need to detect infected patients as quickly and accurately as possible. Group testing proposed by Technion [2] could improve efficiency greatly. However, the false negative rate (FNR) would be doubled. Using USA as an example, group testing would have over 70,000 false negatives, compared to 35,000 false negatives by individual testing. In this paper, we propose a Flexible, Accurate and Speedy Test (FAST), which is faster and more accurate than any existing tests. FAST first forms small close contact subgroups, e.g. families and friends. It then pools subgroups to form larger groups before RT-PCR test is done. FAST needs a similar number of tests to Technion's method, but could sharply reduce the FNR to a negligible level. Again taking USA as example, FAST reduces the number of false negatives to just 2000 while it is seven times faster than individual testing.

Title: Evaluation of a COVID-19 IgM and IgG rapid test; an efficient tool for assessment of past exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Content: COVID-19 is the most rapidly growing pandemic in modern time, and the need for serological testing is most urgent. Although the diagnostics of acute patients by RT-PCR is both efficient and specific, we are also crucially in need of serological tools for investigating antibody responses and assessing individual and potential herd immunity. We evaluated a commercially available test developed for rapid (within 15 minutes) detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG by 29 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases and 124 negative controls. The results revealed a sensitivity of 69% and 93.1% for IgM and IgG, respectively, based solely on PCR-positivity due to the absence of a serological gold standard. The assay specificities were shown to be 100% for IgM and 99.2% for IgG. This indicates that the test is suitable for assessing previous virus exposure, although negative results may be unreliable during the first weeks after infection. More detailed studies on antibody responses during and post infection are urgently needed.

Title: Laboratory Tests for COVID-19: A Review of Peer-Reviewed Publications and Implications for Clinical UIse Content: Diagnostic tests for the coronavirus infection 2019 (COVID-19) are critical for prompt diagnosis, treatment and isolation to break the cycle of transmission A positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), in conjunction with clinical and epidemiologic data, is the current standard for diagnosis, but several challenges still exist Serological assays help to understand epidemiology better and to evaluate vaccine responses but they are unreliable for diagnosis in the acute phase of illness or assuming protective immunity Serology is gaining attention, mainly because of convalescent plasma gaining importance as treatment for clinically worsening COVID-19 patients We provide a narrative review of peer-reviewed research studies on RT-PCR, serology and antigen immune-assays for COVID-19, briefly describe their lab methods and discuss their limitations for clinical practice

Title: Clinical Testing For Covid-19 Content: Abstract As the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19 cases in the United States the initial test was developed and performed at the Center for Disease Control (CDC). As the number of cases increased the demand for tests multiplied, leading the CDC to utilize the Emergency Utilization Authorization to allow clinical and commercial laboratories to develop tests to detect the presence of the virus. Many nucleic acid tests based on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were developed, each with different techniques, specifications and turnaround time. As the illnesses turned into a pandemic, testing became more crucial. The test supply became inadequate to meet the need that it had to be prioritized according to guidance. For surveillance, the need for serologic tests emerged. Here we review the timeline of test development, the turn-around times, the various approved tests and compare them as regards the genes they detect. We concentrate on the point-of-care tests and discuss the basis for new serologic tests. We discuss the testing guidance for prioritization and their application in a hospital setting. As SARS-CoV-2 virus arrived in the USA causing the COVID-19 illness, one of the most talked about issues in the management of the disease and the resulting pandemic has been clinical testing. A unique situation arose of a communicable and highly contagious disease necessitating the rapid diagnosis of patients and the identification of non-symptomatic infected persons. Unfortunately, the USA did not have a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved laboratory test for the illness. The FDA ultimately utilized its Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) on February 4, 2020 to allow for more rapid and widespread development and implementation of in-vitro testing.1 Indeed, companies and organizations utilized the EUA to file applications for new tests based on different methodologies, amounting to 48 applications in the span of 3 months from the beginning of February to the end of April 2020. In addition, multiple other tests were put in place under a separate authorization by a Presidential memorandum in early March allowing laboratories that carry Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) certification to put tests in place without an EUA from the FDA. This created an unprecedented situation where the medical community and the public may not be familiar with the various new tests for COVID-19 that are offered to patients and hospitals. The purpose of this review is to provide information, up-to-date as of the date of submission of the manuscript to the journal, on the various tests that have been developed, their scientific basis and their interpretation. We give a real-world example demonstrating the time lag in the return of test results and review testing prioritization guidance since the supply of tests remains below the perceived need.

Title: Diagnostic performance of COVID-19 serology assays Content: INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 outbreak as a world pandemic on 12th March 2020. Diagnosis of suspected cases is confirmed by nucleic acid assays with real-time PCR, using respiratory samples. Serology tests are comparatively easier to perform, but their utility may be limited by the performance and the fact that antibodies appear later during the disease course. We aimed to describe the performance data on serological assays for COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of multiple reports and kit inserts on the diagnostic performance of rapid tests from various manufacturers that are commercially available were performed. Only preliminary data are available currently. RESULTS: From a total of nine rapid detection test (RDT) kits, three kits offer total antibody detection, while six kits offer combination SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in two separate test lines. All kits are based on colloidal gold-labeled immunochromatography principle and one-step method with results obtained within 15 minutes, using whole blood, serum or plasma samples. The sensitivity for both IgM and IgG tests ranges between 72.7% and 100%, while specificity ranges between 98.7% to 100%. Two immunochromatography using nasopharyngeal or throat swab for detection of COVID-19 specific antigen are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: There is much to determine regarding the value of serological testing in COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring. More comprehensive evaluations of their performance are rapidly underway. The use of serology methods requires appropriate interpretations of the results and understanding the strengths and limitations of such tests.

Title: Multi-tiered screening and diagnosis strategy for COVID-19: a model for sustainable testing capacity in response to pandemic Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by novel enveloped single stranded RNA coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), is responsible for an ongoing global pandemic. While other countries deployed widespread testing as an early mitigation strategy, the U.S. experienced delays in development and deployment of organism identification assays. As such, there is uncertainty surrounding disease burden and community spread, severely hampering containment efforts. COVID-19 illuminates the need for a tiered diagnostic approach to rapidly identify clinically significant infections and reduce disease spread. Without the ability to efficiently screen patients, hospitals are overwhelmed, potentially delaying treatment for other emergencies. A multi-tiered, diagnostic strategy incorporating a rapid host immune response assay as a screening test, molecular confirmatory testing and rapid IgM/IgG testing to assess benefit from quarantine/further testing and provide information on population exposure/herd immunity would efficiently evaluate potential COVID-19 patients. Triaging patients within minutes with a fingerstick rather than hours/days after an invasive swab is critical to pandemic response as reliance on the existing strategy is limited by assay accuracy, time to results, and testing capacity. Early screening and triage is achievable from the outset of a pandemic with point-of-care host immune response testing which will improve response time to clinical and public health actions.Key messagesDelayed testing deployment has led to uncertainty surrounding overall disease burden and community spread, severely hampering public health containment and healthcare system preparation efforts.A multi-tiered testing strategy incorporating rapid, host immune point-of-care tests can be used now and for future pandemic planning by effectively identifying patients at risk of disease thereby facilitating quarantine earlier in the progression of the outbreak during the weeks and months it can take for pathogen specific confirmatory tests to be developed, validated and manufactured in sufficient quantities.The ability to triage patients at the point of care and support the guidance of medical and therapeutic decisions, for viral isolation or confirmatory testing or for appropriate treatment of COVID-19 and/or bacterial infections, is a critical component to our national pandemic response and there is an urgent need to implement the proposed strategy to combat the current outbreak.

Title: Developing a Point-of-Care Molecular Test to Detect SARS-CoV-2 Content: There is a need for widespread testing in India to stop the spread of the novel coronavirus in the population. While RT-PCR is the recommended diagnostic technique, its use is limited to well-equipped laboratories due to the need for specialized instrumentation, reagents and trained personnel. Immunodiagnostic tests are not yet recommended by the WHO for diagnosing active infections. There is a strong need for developing point-of-care molecular tests. Based on our past experience with paperfluidic devices for diagnosing bacterial infections by molecular tests, we propose the development of a diagnostic test for COVID-19. As a platform technology, it could be adapted to other viral outbreaks in future.

Title: Molecular and Serological Tests for COVID-19. A Comparative Review of SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Laboratory and Point-of-Care Diagnostics Content: Validated and accurate laboratory testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a crucial part of the timely management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease, supporting the clinical decision-making process for infection control at the healthcare level and detecting asymptomatic cases. This would facilitate an appropriate treatment, a prompt isolation and consequently deceleration of the pandemic. Various laboratory tests can identify the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 in specimens, or specific anti-viral antibodies in blood/serum. Due to the current pandemic situation, a development of point-of-care diagnostics (POCD) allows us to substantially accelerate taking clinical decisions and implement strategic planning at the national level of preventative measures. This review summarizes and compares the available POCD and those currently under development, including quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR), serology immunoassays (SIAs) and protein microarray method (PMM) designed for standard and rapid COVID-19 diagnosis.

Title: A comparison of group testing architectures for COVID-19 testing Content: An important component of every country's COVID-19 response is fast and efficient testing -- to identify and isolate cases, as well as for early detection of local hotspots. For many countries, producing a sufficient number of tests has been a serious limiting factor in their efforts to control COVID-19 infections. Group testing is a well-established mathematical tool, which can provide a serious and rapid improvement to this situation. In this note, we compare several well-established group testing schemes in the context of qPCR testing for COVID-19. We include example calculations, where we indicate which testing architectures yield the greatest efficiency gains in various settings. We find that for identification of individuals with COVID-19, array testing is usually the best choice, while for estimation of COVID-19 prevalence rates in the total population, Gibbs-Gower testing usually provides the most accurate estimates given a fixed and relatively small number of tests. This note is intended as a helpful handbook for labs implementing group testing methods.

Title: Diagnosis of COVID-19: Considerations, controversies and challenges Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to a novel virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a global pandemic that has resulted in over 1.5 million confirmed cases and close to 100 000 deaths. In the majority of symptomatic cases, COVID-19 results in a mild disease predominantly characterised by upper respiratory tract symptoms. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using a nasopharyngeal sample is the mainstay of diagnosis, but there is an ~30% false negative rate early in the disease and in patients with mild disease, and therefore repeat testing may be required. RT-PCR positivity can persist for several days after resolution of symptoms. IgM and IgG antibody responses become positive several days after the onset of symptoms, and robust antibody responses are detectable in the second week of illness. Antibody-based immunoassays have a limited role in the diagnosis of early symptomatic disease. However, their incremental benefit over RT-PCR in the first 2 weeks of illness is currently being clarified in ongoing studies. Such assays may be useful for surveillance purposes. However, their role in potentially selecting individuals who may benefit from vaccination, or as a biomarker identifying persons who could be redeployed into essential employment roles, is being investigated. Rapid antibody-based immunoassays that detect viral antigen in nasopharyngeal samples are being developed and evaluated.

Title: Multi-Tiered Screening and Diagnosis Strategy for COVID-19: A Model for Sustainable Testing Capacity in Response to Pandemic. Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by novel enveloped single stranded RNA coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), is responsible for an ongoing global pandemic. While other countries deployed widespread testing as an early mitigation strategy, the U.S. experienced delays in development and deployment of organism identification assays. As such, there is uncertainty surrounding disease burden and community spread, severely hampering containment efforts. COVID-19 illuminates the need for a tiered diagnostic approach to rapidly identify clinically significant infections and reduce disease spread. Without the ability to efficiently screen patients, hospitals are overwhelmed, potentially delaying treatment for other emergencies.A multi-tiered, diagnostic strategy incorporating a rapid host immune response assay as a screening test; molecular confirmatory testing and rapid IgM/IgG testing to assess benefit from quarantine/further testing and provide information on population exposure/herd immunity would efficiently evaluate potential COVID-19 patients. Triaging patients within minutes with a fingerstick rather than hours/days after an invasive swab is critical to pandemic response as reliance on the existing strategy is limited by assay accuracy, time to results, and testing capacity. Early screening and triage is achievable from the outset of a pandemic with point-of-care host immune response testing which will improve response time to clinical and public health actions. Key MessagesDelayed testing deployment has led to uncertainty surrounding overall disease burden and community spread, severely hampering public health containment and healthcare system preparation efforts.A multi-tiered testing strategy incorporating rapid, host immune point-of-care tests can be used now and for future pandemic planning by effectively identifying patients at risk of disease thereby facilitating quarantine earlier in the progression of the outbreak during the weeks and months it can take for pathogen specific confirmatory tests to be developed, validated and manufactured in sufficient quantities.The ability to triage patients at the point of care and support the guidance of medical and therapeutic decisions, for viral isolation or confirmatory testing or for appropriate treatment of COVID-19 and/or bacterial infections, is a critical component to our national pandemic response and there is an urgent need to implement the proposed strategy to combat the current outbreak.

Title: Antibody Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Meta-Analysis Content: The emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 made imperative the need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies are usually inconclusive, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. We used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA), and the Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA). We identified 38 studies containing data from 7848 individuals. Tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody alone. All methods yield high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods perform better in terms of sensitivity (90%–94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 89%. ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. LFIA tests are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies but show lower sensitivity, and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.

Title: Diagnostic performance of COVID-19 serology assays. Content: INTRODUCTION The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 outbreak as a world pandemic on 12th March 2020. Diagnosis of suspected cases is confirmed by nucleic acid assays with real-time PCR, using respiratory samples. Serology tests are comparatively easier to perform, but their utility may be limited by the performance and the fact that antibodies appear later during the disease course. We aimed to describe the performance data on serological assays for COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS A review of multiple reports and kit inserts on the diagnostic performance of rapid tests from various manufacturers that are commercially available were performed. Only preliminary data are available currently. RESULTS From a total of nine rapid detection test (RDT) kits, three kits offer total antibody detection, while six kits offer combination SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in two separate test lines. All kits are based on colloidal gold-labeled immunochromatography principle and one-step method with results obtained within 15 minutes, using whole blood, serum or plasma samples. The sensitivity for both IgM and IgG tests ranges between 72.7% and 100%, while specificity ranges between 98.7% to 100%. Two immunochromatography using nasopharyngeal or throat swab for detection of COVID-19 specific antigen are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS There is much to determine regarding the value of serological testing in COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring. More comprehensive evaluations of their performance are rapidly underway. The use of serology methods requires appropriate interpretations of the results and understanding the strengths and limitations of such tests.

Title: Laboratory Tests for COVID-19: A Review of Peer-Reviewed Publications and Implications for Clinical UIse. Content: Diagnostic tests for the coronavirus infection 2019 (COVID-19) are critical for prompt diagnosis, treatment and isolation to break the cycle of transmission. A positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), in conjunction with clinical and epidemiologic data, is the current standard for diagnosis, but several challenges still exist. Serological assays help to understand epidemiology better and to evaluate vaccine responses but they are unreliable for diagnosis in the acute phase of illness or assuming protective immunity. Serology is gaining attention, mainly because of convalescent plasma gaining importance as treatment for clinically worsening COVID-19 patients. We provide a narrative review of peer-reviewed research studies on RT-PCR, serology and antigen immune-assays for COVID-19, briefly describe their lab methods and discuss their limitations for clinical practice.

Title: The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) position statement on COVID-19 Content: For the detection of early COVID-19 disease, RCPA supports the use of molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2 and strongly opposes the introduction of COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid tests for this purpose.

Title: The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) position statement on COVID-19. Content: For the detection of early COVID-19 disease, RCPA supports the use of molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2 and strongly opposes the introduction of COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid tests for this purpose.

Title: Diagnostic Performance of a Rapid Point of Care Test for SARS‐CoV‐2 in an Urban ED Setting Content: The ability to rapidly and accurately identify a patient's COVID‐19 status has had significant impact on emergency departments (ED) and health systems globally. Since the identification of SARS‐CoV‐2 illness in the United States, there has been rapid development in patient testing capacity following initial challenges including sparse availability. This was made possible by increasing availability of diagnostic molecular tests in several formats, from laboratory based traditional, RT‐PCR methods to near patient testing rapid point of care PCR tests.

Title: Trends and Innovations in Biosensors for COVID-19 Mass Testing Content: Fast and widespread diagnosis is crucial to fighting against the outbreak of COVID-19. This work surveys the landscape of available and emerging biosensor technologies for COVID-19 testing. Molecular diagnostic assays based on quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction are used in most clinical laboratories. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed testing capacity and motivated the development of fast point-of-care tests and the adoption of isothermal DNA amplification. Antigenic and serological rapid tests based on lateral-flow immunoassays suffer from low sensitivity. Advanced digital systems enhance performance at the expense of speed and the need for large equipment. Emerging technologies, including CRISPR gene-editing tools, benefit from high sensitivity and specificity of molecular diagnostics and the easy use of lateral-flow assays. DNA sequencing and sample pooling strategies are highlighted to bring out the full capacity of the available biosensor technologies and accelerate mass testing.

Title: Testing For SARS-CoV-2: The Day the World Turned its Attention to the Clinical Laboratory Content: In the last few months, an unprecedented number of laboratory tests for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been developed at a remarkable speed. With the rapid adoption of these tests into clinical practice, combined with the widespread publicity they received, questions arose related to the different types of tests, their utility, performance, and regulatory approval status. The aim of this publication is to provide a general landscape of laboratory testing for COVID-19 and offer a historical and regulatory perspective associated with them. Specifically, we aim to elaborate on the regulatory complexities of diagnostic testing in the United States and its implications to the present outbreak, as well as provide a synopsis of laboratory tests that have been developed for COVID-19. We will first address the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 directly by either nucleic acid amplification tests or by the detection of the viral protein for active infections. Subsequently, we will provide an overview of serological tests that can aid not only in diagnosis but additionally help to identify prior infections and potential immunity.

Title: Characteristics and assessment of the usefulness of serological tests in the diagnostic of infections caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 on the basis of available manufacturer's data and literature review. Content: Recognized in 2019 in Wuhan, China, the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is responsible for the occurrence of a global pandemic disease called COVID-19. So far, confirmation of infection is based on the detection of virus RNA in a sample taken from a person meeting the suspected case definition. However, in the laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections, in addition to genetic tests, serological methods can also be used to detect specific antibodies of the IgM, IgG and IgA class produced after contact with antigens or to detect viral antigen. Currently, a number of rapid immunochromatographic, chemiluminescent and ELISA immunoassay tests developed by different manufacturers for the diagnosis of COVID-19 are available on the market. Despite this fact, so far there is no WHO or ECDC recommendations or even reliable research regarding the usefulness of serological investigations in the laboratory diagnosis of infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Title: Characteristics and assessment of the usefulness of serological tests in the diagnostic of infections caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 on the basis of available manufacturer's data and literature review Content: Recognized in 2019 in Wuhan, China, the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is responsible for the occurrence of a global pandemic disease called COVID-19. So far, confirmation of infection is based on the detection of virus RNA in a sample taken from a person meeting the suspected case definition. However, in the laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections, in addition to genetic tests, serological methods can also be used to detect specific antibodies of the IgM, IgG and IgA class produced after contact with antigens or to detect viral antigen. Currently, a number of rapid immunochromatographic, chemiluminescent and ELISA immunoassay tests developed by different manufacturers for the diagnosis of COVID-19 are available on the market. Despite this fact, so far there is no WHO or ECDC recommendations or even reliable research regarding the usefulness of serological investigations in the laboratory diagnosis of infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Title: Towards effective diagnostic assays for COVID-19: a review Content: Countries globally are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with nearly two million cases and 120 000 deaths occurring within 4 months of the discovery of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in December 2019 in China. Accurate diagnoses of cases is key in managing the pandemic by identification, isolation and treatment of patients and defining the epidemiology of the virus. By mid-January 2020, a scientist from China published the full genome of the virus, which facilitated the development of accurate molecular diagnostic assays. By the end of January 2020, the WHO, in collaboration with laboratories in Asia, Europe and the USA, published several real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rtRT-PCR) protocols that allowed identification of cases and development of commercial assays. Clinical investigations facilitated development of accurate case definition and guidance for laboratories on the optimum specimens and procedures for diagnoses. Currently, laboratory-based rtRT-PCR is the recommended test for diagnoses of acute cases to ensure patients can be identified and isolated and to facilitate the public health response. However, due to delays in diagnoses, severe shortage of tests and laboratory capacity, point-of-care molecular or antigen tests are becoming more attractive. Although serological tests are not suitable for diagnoses of acute cases, they are important to define epidemiological questions, including attack rate in the population, and to identify immune individuals. This review aimed to summarise the current available information for diagnoses of cases and to aid laboratories and healthcare workers to select the best assays and procedures.

Title: Towards effective diagnostic assays for COVID-19: a review. Content: Countries globally are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with nearly two million cases and 120 000 deaths occurring within 4 months of the discovery of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in December 2019 in China. Accurate diagnoses of cases is key in managing the pandemic by identification, isolation and treatment of patients and defining the epidemiology of the virus. By mid-January 2020, a scientist from China published the full genome of the virus, which facilitated the development of accurate molecular diagnostic assays. By the end of January 2020, the WHO, in collaboration with laboratories in Asia, Europe and the USA, published several real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rtRT-PCR) protocols that allowed identification of cases and development of commercial assays. Clinical investigations facilitated development of accurate case definition and guidance for laboratories on the optimum specimens and procedures for diagnoses. Currently, laboratory-based rtRT-PCR is the recommended test for diagnoses of acute cases to ensure patients can be identified and isolated and to facilitate the public health response. However, due to delays in diagnoses, severe shortage of tests and laboratory capacity, point-of-care molecular or antigen tests are becoming more attractive. Although serological tests are not suitable for diagnoses of acute cases, they are important to define epidemiological questions, including attack rate in the population, and to identify immune individuals. This review aimed to summarise the current available information for diagnoses of cases and to aid laboratories and healthcare workers to select the best assays and procedures.

Title: Laboratory Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) Content: The outbreak of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has threatened health worldwide. As of the end of 2020, there were nearly 10 million confirmed cases and nearly 5 million deaths associated with COVID-19. Rapid and early laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is the main focus of treatment and control. Molecular tests are the basis for confirmation of COVID-19, but serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 are widely available and play an increasingly important role in understanding the epidemiology of the virus and in identifying populations at higher risk for infection. Point-of-care tests have the advantage of rapid, accurate, portable, low cost and non-specific device requirements, which provide great help for disease diagnosis and detection. This review will discuss the performance of different laboratory diagnostic tests and platforms, as well as suitable clinical samples for testing, and related biosafety protection. This review shall guide for the diagnosis of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Title: Trends and innovations in biosensors for COVID-19 mass testing. Content: Fast and widespread diagnosis is crucial to fight against the outbreak of COVID-19. The present work surveys the landscape of available and emerging biosensor technologies for COVID-19 testing. Molecular diagnostic assays based on quantitative Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction are used in most clinical laboratories. The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed the testing capacity and motivated the development of fast point-of-care tests and the adoption of isothermal DNA amplification. Antigenic and serological rapid tests based on lateral flow immunoassays suffer from low sensitivity. Advanced digital systems enhance the performance at the expense of speed and large equipment requirement. Emerging technologies, including CRISPR gene-editing tools, benefit from high sensitivity and selectivity of molecular diagnostics and the easy use of lateral flow assays. DNA sequencing and sample pooling strategies are highlighted to bring out the full capacity of the available biosensor technologies and accelerate mass testing.

Title: Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of Four Lateral Flow Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a potentially life-threatening respiratory infection caused by severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), for which numerous serologic assays are available. In a CLIA laboratory setting, we used a retrospective sample set (n = 457) to evaluate two lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs; two iterations of Rapid Response COVID-19 Test Cassette, BTNX Inc.) and a subset of to evaluate SARS-COV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, ACON Laboratories (n = 200); and Standard Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Duo, SD BIOSENSOR (n = 155) for their capacity to detect of SARS-CoV-2 IgG. In a cohort of primarily hospitalized patients with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19, the BTNX assays demonstrated 95% and 92% agreement with the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and sensitivity was highest at [≥] 14 days from symptom onset [BTNX kit 1, 95%; BTNX kit 2, 91%]. ACON and SD assays demonstrated 99% and 100% agreement with the Abbott assay at [≥] 14 days from symptom onset. Specificity was measured using 74 specimens collected prior to SARS-CoV-2 circulation in the United States and 31 cross-reactivity challenge specimens, including those from patients with a history of seasonal coronavirus infection and was 98% for BTNX kit 1 and ACON and 100% for BTNX kit 2 and SD. Taken with data from EUA assays, these results suggest that LFIAs may provide adequate results for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2. Replicating these results in fingerstick blood in outpatient populations, would further support the possibility that LFIAs may be useful to increase access to serologic testing.

Title: Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 presenting to the hospital Content: OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of rapid lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) compared with an ELISA and nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) in individuals with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Patients presenting to a Dutch teaching hospital were eligible between 17 March and 10 April 2020, when they had respiratory symptoms that were suspected for COVID-19. The performances of six different LFAs were evaluated in plasma samples obtained on corresponding respiratory sample dates of NATs testing. Subsequently, the best performing LFA was evaluated in 228 patients and in 50 sera of a historical patient control group. RESULTS: In the pilot analysis, sensitivity characteristics of LFA were heterogeneous, ranging from 2/20 (10%; 95% CI 0%-23%) to 11/20 (55%; 95% CI 33%-77%). In the total cohort, Orient Gene Biotech COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test LFA had a sensitivity of 43/99 (43%; 95% CI 34%-53%) and specificity of 126/129 (98%; 95% CI 95%-100%). Sensitivity increased to 31/52 (60%; 95% CI 46%-73%) in patients with at least 7 days of symptoms, and to 21/33 (64%; 95% CI 47%-80%) in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥100 mg/L. Sensitivity and specificity of Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA was 59/95 (62%; 95% CI 52%-72%) and 125/128 (98%; 95% CI 95%-100%) in all patients, respectively, but sensitivity increased to 38/48 (79%; 95% CI 68%-91%) in patients with at least 7 days of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: There is large variability in diagnostic test performance between rapid LFAs, but overall limited sensitivity and high specificity in acutely admitted patients. Sensitivity improved in patients with longer existing symptoms or high CRP. LFAs should only be considered as additional triage tools when these may lead to the improvement of hospital logistics.

Title: Laboratory Diagnosis of Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection caused by the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The infection manifests as a mild flu to severe acute respiratory infection. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. The disease spreads by droplet infection from person to person. Early diagnosis is the key for prompt management of cases and control of the spread of the virus. Currently, the laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is based on nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) like real-time reverse transcriptase (RT-PCR). Various genes like E, N, S, ORF and RdRp are targeted as a part of screening and confirmation of cases. Furthermore, nucleic acid sequencing may be done for the identification of mutation in the genome of SARS-CoV-2. The development of serological assays and point of care molecular test will further intensify the diagnostic modalities of SARS-CoV-2.

Title: COVID-19 Clinical Diagnostics and Testing Technology Content: Given the global nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for disease detection and expanding testing capacity remains a critical priority. This review discusses the technological advances in testing capability and methodology that are currently employed or in development for detecting the novel coronavirus. We describe the current clinical diagnostics and technology, including molecular and serological testing approaches, for SARS-CoV-2 testing as well as address their advantages and limitations. Nucleic acid amplification technology for molecular diagnostics remains the gold standard for virus detection. We highlight alternative molecular detection techniques used for developing novel COVID-19 diagnostics on the horizon. Antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 remains poorly understood and proper validation of serology tests is necessary to demonstrate their accuracy and clinical utility. In order to bring the pandemic under control, we must speed up the development of rapid and widespread testing through improvements in clinical diagnostics and testing technology as well as access to these tools.

Title: Field-deployable, rapid diagnostic testing of saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2. Content: Abstract Rapid, scalable, point-of-need, COVID-19 diagnostic testing is necessary to safely re-open economies and prevent future outbreaks. We developed an assay that detects single copies of SARS-CoV-2 virus directly from saliva and swab samples in 30 min using a simple, one-step protocol that utilizes only a heat block and microcentrifuge tube prefilled with a mixture containing the necessary reagents and has a sensitivity and specificity of 97% and 100%, respectively.

Title: Top stories: Bungled coronavirus testing, disarming ‘atomic bomb’ cells, and jet stream blocking Content: Speed is critical in the response to COVID-19 So why has the United States been so slow in its attempt to develop reliable diagnostic tests and use them widely? One answer is that a test kit designed by the U S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and rolled out to state and local labs late last month contained a faulty reagent The problems have led many to doubt the accuracy of confirmed tallies of the disease But the situation may soon improve, as the Food and Drug Administration comes up with a workaround for the faulty CDC kit

Title: Diagnosis of COVID-19: Considerations, Controversies and Challenges in South Africa Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a global pandemic that has resulted in over 1.5 million confirmed cases and close to 100,000 deaths. In the majority of symptomatic cases COVID-19 results in a mild disease predominantly characterised by upper respiratory tract symptoms. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), using a nasopharyngeal sample, is the mainstay of diagnosis, but there is an ~30% false negative rate early in the disease and in patients with mild disease. RT-PCR positivity can persist for several days after a resolution of symptoms. IgM and IgG antibody responses become positive several days after the onset of symptoms, and robust antibody responses are detectable in the second week of illness. Antibody-based immunoassays have a limited role in the diagnosis of early symptomatic disease. However, their incremental benefit over RT-PCR in the first 2 weeks of illness is currently being clarified in ongoing studies. Such assays may be useful for surveillance purposes. However, their role in potentially selecting individuals that may benefit from vaccination, or as a biomarker identifying persons that could be redeployed into essential employment roles are being investigated. Rapid antibody-based immunoassays that detect viral antigen in nasopharyngeal samples are being developed and evaluated.

Title: Development of a Novel, Genome Subtraction-Derived, SARS-CoV-2-Specific COVID-19-nsp2 Real-Time RT-PCR Assay and Its Evaluation Using Clinical Specimens Content: The pandemic novel coronavirus infection, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), has affected at least 190 countries or territories, with 465,915 confirmed cases and 21,031 deaths. In a containment-based strategy, rapid, sensitive and specific testing is important in epidemiological control and clinical management. Using 96 SARS-CoV-2 and 104 non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus genomes and our in-house program, GolayMetaMiner, four specific regions longer than 50 nucleotides in the SARS-CoV-2 genome were identified. Primers were designed to target the longest and previously untargeted nsp2 region and optimized as a probe-free real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. The new COVID-19-nsp2 assay had a limit of detection (LOD) of 1.8 TCID50/mL and did not amplify other human-pathogenic coronaviruses and respiratory viruses. Assay reproducibility in terms of cycle threshold (Cp) values was satisfactory, with the total imprecision (% CV) values well below 5%. Evaluation of the new assay using 59 clinical specimens from 14 confirmed cases showed 100% concordance with our previously developed COVID-19-RdRp/Hel reference assay. A rapid, sensitive, SARS-CoV-2-specific real-time RT-PCR assay, COVID-19-nsp2, was developed.

Title: An Extended Laboratory Validation Study and Comparative Performance Evaluation of the Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 Assay in a Coastal California Tertiary Care Medical Center Content: Abstract: The Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 assay is a rapid molecular diagnostic test particularly designed for on-site, rapid turnaround point of care (POC) testing. The utilization of rapid diagnostic tests is integral to optimizing workflow within the hospital and/or procedural-based clinics. The capability to provide both rapid disposition and correct patient classification during this COVID-19 pandemic is critically important with broad infection control implications for both patients and healthcare staff. A tightly controlled, extended laboratory validation was performed at our medical center to determine the negative test agreement of the Abbott ID NOW compared with the BD MAX analyzer, a laboratory-based, two target, molecular analyzer with a sensitive cycle threshold (Ct) positive cutoff value of 42. There was strict adoption of the procedures listed in the Abbott ID NOW Instruction for Use (IFU)1 insert delineating preferred practices for optimal test performance. Under these conditions, our institution demonstrated a significant negative percent agreement with 116 out of 117 patients correlating, which equates to a 99.1% concordance similar to a recently reported correlation study2.

Title: Development and validation of a rapid single-step reverse transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) system potentially to be used for reliable and high-throughput screening of COVID-19 Content: The recent pandemic of COVID-19 has involved tens of thousands of patients in numerous countries and the causative virus, SARS COV-2 is highly transmissible. Molecular diagnostic tools are central to containment of the virus and initiating proper clinical care. Rapidity, user-friendliness, and high degree of sensitivity and specificity are desirable features of diagnostic assays for screening purposes. Herein, we present a single step reverse transcriptase LAMP assay (RT-LAMP), which can detect up to 500 viral copies in 30 minutes. We challenged our assay with a large number of clinical samples collected from 47 confirmed cases and 213 negative patients. Our LAMP assay showed a high degree of sensitivity and specificity compared to two commercialized qRT-PCR assay as gold standard. We present a rapid RT-LAMP assay that could extend the capacity of laboratories to process 2.5 more clinical samples relative to qRT-PCR and potentially could be used for high-throughput screening purposes.

Title: Development of a Novel, Genome Subtraction-Derived, SARS-CoV-2-Specific COVID-19-nsp2 Real-Time RT-PCR Assay and Its Evaluation Using Clinical Specimens Content: The pandemic novel coronavirus infection, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), has affected at least 190 countries or territories, with 465,915 confirmed cases and 21,031 deaths. In a containment-based strategy, rapid, sensitive and specific testing is important in epidemiological control and clinical management. Using 96 SARS-CoV-2 and 104 non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus genomes and our in-house program, GolayMetaMiner, four specific regions longer than 50 nucleotides in the SARS-CoV-2 genome were identified. Primers were designed to target the longest and previously untargeted nsp2 region and optimized as a probe-free real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. The new COVID-19-nsp2 assay had a limit of detection (LOD) of 1.8 TCID(50)/mL and did not amplify other human-pathogenic coronaviruses and respiratory viruses. Assay reproducibility in terms of cycle threshold (Cp) values was satisfactory, with the total imprecision (% CV) values well below 5%. Evaluation of the new assay using 59 clinical specimens from 14 confirmed cases showed 100% concordance with our previously developed COVID-19-RdRp/Hel reference assay. A rapid, sensitive, SARS-CoV-2-specific real-time RT-PCR assay, COVID-19-nsp2, was developed.

Title: Diagnostic techniques for COVID-19 and new developments Content: COVID-19 pandemic is a serious global health issue today due to the rapid human to human transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a new type of coronavirus that causes fatal pneumonia. SARS -CoV-2 has a faster rate of transmission than other coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS and until now there are no approved specific drugs or vaccines for treatment. Thus, early diagnosis is crucial to prevent the extensive spread of the disease. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the most routinely used method until now to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, several other faster and accurate assays are being developed for the diagnosis of COVID-19 aiming to control the spread of infection through the identification of patients and immediate isolation. In this review, we will discuss the various detection methods of the SARS-CoV-2 virus including the recent developments in immunological assays, amplification techniques as well as biosensors.

Title: Four point-of-care lateral flow immunoassays for diagnosis of COVID-19 and for assessing dynamics of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 Content: OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the role of rapid serological tests in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 16 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and 58 COVID-19 negative patients at a medical center in Taiwan over a 3-month period. Serial serum samples were collected and tested for antibody response using four point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) (ALLTEST 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, and Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test). Time-dependent detection sensitivity and timeliness of seroconversion were determined and compared between the four POC rapid tests. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity and specificity of the four tests for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after 3 weeks of symptom onset were 100% and 100%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the rapid tests used for detection of IgM and IgG separately and those used for detection of combined total antibody (mainly IgM/IgG). There was no significant difference between the four POC rapid tests in terms of time required for determining seroconversion of COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 with pneumonia demonstrated shorter seroconversion time than those without pneumonia. CONCLUSION: Though the POC antibody rapid tests based on LFIA showed reliable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, the results of these tests should be interpreted and applied appropriately in the context of antibody dynamic of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 patients complicated with pneumonia exhibited earlier anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response than COVID-19 patients without pneumonia.

Title: Rapid Detection of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) by Reverse Transcription-Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Content: Novel Corona virus (COVID-19 or 2019-nCoV) is an emerging global health concern that requires a rapid diagnostic test. Quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) is currently the standard for COVID-19 detection; however, Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP) may allow for faster and cheaper field based testing at point-of-risk. The objective of this study was to develop a rapid screening diagnostic test that could be completed in under 30 minutes. Simulated patient samples were generated by spiking serum, urine, saliva, oropharyngeal swabs, and nasopharyngeal swabs with a portion of the COVID-19 nucleic sequence. The samples were tested using RT-LAMP as well as by conventional qRT-PCR. Specificity of the RT-LAMP was evaluated by also testing against other related coronaviruses. RT-LAMP specifically detected COVID-19 in simulated patient samples. This test was performed in under 30 minutes. This approach could be used for monitoring of exposed individuals or potentially aid with screening efforts in the field and potential ports of entry.

Title: Comparison of Abbott ID Now and Abbott m2000 methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs from symptomatic patients Content: The ID NOW COVID-19 (IDNCOV) assay performed on the ID Now Instrument (Abbott Diagnostics, Scarborough, Inc. Scarborough, ME) is a rapid diagnostic test that can be performed in a point of care setting equivalent to CLIA waived testing. .

Title: Comparison of diagnostic accuracies of rapid serological tests and ELISA to molecular diagnostics in patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting to the hospital Content: OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of rapid lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) compared to an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) in suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: Patients presenting to a Dutch teaching hospital were eligible between March 17 and April 10, 2020, when they had respiratory symptoms that were suspected for COVID-19. The performances of six different LFAs were evaluated in plasma samples obtained on corresponding respiratory sample dates of NATs testing. Subsequently, the best performing LFA was evaluated in 228 patients and in 50 sera of a historical patient control group. RESULTS: In the pilot analysis sensitivity characteristics of LFA were heterogenous ranging from 2/20 (10%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0-23) to 11/20 (55%; 95% CI 33-77). In the total cohort, Orient Gene Biotech COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test LFA had a sensitivity of 43/99 (43%; 95% CI 34-53) and specificity of 126/129 (98%; 95% CI 95-100). Sensitivity increased to 31/52 (60%; 95% CI 46-73) in patients with at least seven days of symptoms, and to 21/33 (64%; 95% CI 47-80) in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) >100 mg/L. Sensitivity and specificity of Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA was 59/95 (62%; 95% CI 52-72) and 125/128 (98%; 95% CI 95-100) in all patients, respectively, but sensitivity increased to 38/48 (79%; 95% CI 68-91) in patients with at least seven days of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: There is large variability in diagnostic test performance between rapid LFAs, but overall limited sensitivity and high specificity in acutely admitted patients. Sensitivity improved in patients with longer existing symptoms or high CRP. LFAs should only be considered as additional triage tools when these may lead to the improvement of hospital logistics.

Title: Multicentre comparison of quantitative PCR-based assays to detect SARS-CoV-2, Germany, March 2020 Content: Containment strategies and clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients during the current pandemic depend on reliable diagnostic PCR assays for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Here, we compare 11 different RT-PCR test systems used in seven diagnostic laboratories in Germany in March 2020. While most assays performed well, we identified detection problems in a commonly used assay that may have resulted in false-negative test results during the first weeks of the pandemic.

Title: Laboratory Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) Content: Abstract The outbreak of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has threatened health worldwide. As of the end of 2020, there were nearly 10 million confirmed cases and nearly 5 million deaths associated with COVID-19. Rapid and early laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is the main focus of treatment and control. Molecular tests are the basis for confirmation of COVID-19, but serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 are widely available and play an increasingly important role in understanding the epidemiology of the virus and in identifying populations at higher risk for infection. Point-of-care tests have the advantage of rapid, accurate, portable, low cost and non-specific device requirements, which provide great help for disease diagnosis and detection. This review will discuss the performance of different laboratory diagnostic tests and platforms, as well as suitable clinical samples for testing, and related biosafety protection. This review shall guide for the diagnosis of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Title: SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 disease: a mini review on diagnostic methods Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease initially reported in China and currently worldwide dispersed caused by a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV) affecting more than seven million people around the world causing more than 400 thousand deaths (on June 8th, 2020). The diagnosis of COVID-19 is based on the clinical and epidemiological history of the patient. However, the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is the viral detection through the amplification of nucleic acids. Although the quantitative Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) has been described as the gold standard for diagnosing COVID-19, there are several difficulties involving its use. Here we comment on RT-PCR and describe alternative tests developed for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Title: SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 disease: a mini review on diagnostic methods Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease initially reported in China and currently worldwide dispersed caused by a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 or 2019-nCoV) affecting more than seven million people around the world causing more than 400 thousand deaths (on June 8(th), 2020). The diagnosis of COVID-19 is based on the clinical and epidemiological history of the patient. However, the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is the viral detection through the amplification of nucleic acids. Although the quantitative Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) has been described as the gold standard for diagnosing COVID-19, there are several difficulties involving its use. Here we comment on RT-PCR and describe alternative tests developed for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Title: Testing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): a systematic review and clinical guide to molecular and serological in-vitro diagnostic assays Content: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has demanded rapid upscaling of in-vitro diagnostic assays to enable mass screening and testing of high-risk groups, and simultaneous ascertainment of robust data on past SARS-CoV-2 exposure at an individual and a population level. To meet the exponential demand in testing, there has been an accelerated development of both molecular and serological assays across a plethora of platforms. The present review discusses the current literature on these modalities, including nucleic acid amplification tests, direct viral antigen tests and the rapidly expanding laboratory-based and point of care serological tests. This suite of complementary tests will inform crucial decisions by healthcare providers and policy makers, and understanding their strengths and limitations will be critical to their judicious application for the development of algorithmic approaches to treatment and public health strategies.

Title: Validation and performance of a quantitative IgG assay for the screening of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies Content: The current COVID-19 epidemic imposed an unpreceded challenge to the scientific community in terms of treatment, epidemiology, diagnosis, social interaction, fiscal policies and many other areas. The development of accurate and reliable diagnostic tools (high specificity and sensitivity) is crucial in the current period, the near future and in the long term. These assays should provide guidance to identify immune presumptive protected persons, potential plasma, and/or B cell donors and vaccine development among others. Also, such assays will be contributory in supporting prospective and retrospective studies to identify the prevalence and incidence of COVID-19 and to characterize the dynamics of the immune response. As of today, only thirteen serological assays have received the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA). In this work we describe the development and validation of a quantitative IgG enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) using the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein S1 domain, containing the receptor-binding domain (RBD), showing 98% sensitivity and 98.9% specificity. The assay showed to be useful to test for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in plasma samples from COVID-19-recovered subjects as potential donors for plasmapheresis. This assay is currently under review by the Federal Drug Administration for an Emergency Use Authorization request (Submission Number EUA201115).

Title: Head-to-head comparison of four antigen-based rapid detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples Content: In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the development and validation of rapid and easy-to-perform diagnostic methods are of high priority. We compared the performance of four rapid antigen detection tests for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. Immunochromatographic SARS-CoV-2 assays from RapiGEN, Liming bio, Savant, and Bioeasy were evaluated using universal transport medium containing naso-oropharyngeal swabs from suspected Covid-19 cases. The diagnostic accuracy was determined in comparison to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. A total of 111 samples were included; 80 were RT-PCR positive. Median patients’ age was 40 years, 55% were female, and 88% presented within the first week after symptom onset. The evaluation of the Liming bio assay was discontinued due to insufficient performance. The overall sensitivity values of RapiGEN, Liming bio, and Bioeasy tests were 62.0% (CI95% 51.0–71.9), 16.7% (CI95% 10.0–26.5), and 85.0% (CI95% 75.6–91.2), respectively, with specificities of 100%. Sensitivity was significantly higher in samples with high viral loads (RapiGEN, 84.9%; Bioeasy, 100%). The study highlighted the significant heterogeneity of test performance among evaluated assays, which might have been influenced by the use of a non-validated sample material. The high sensitivity of some tests demonstrated that rapid antigen detection has the potential to serve as an alternative diagnostic method, especially in patients presenting with high viral loads in early phases of infection. This is particularly important in situations with limited access to RT-PCR or prolonged turnaround time. Further comparative evaluations are necessary to select products with high performance among the growing market of diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2.

Title: COVID-19: Current Trends in Invitro Diagnostics Content: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh known species of coronavirus, infectious to human beings. The pandemic COVID-19 spread all over the world with an unprecedented spreading rate after its first appearance in Wuhan, China. As a novel viral disease there in no antiviral treatment or vaccine for the COVID-19. At present, the early detection and the quarantine of infected patients are the ways to stop the spreading of the disease. This review will discuss about the current invitro diagnostic methods used worldwide for the early and accurate diagnosis of COVID-19. Currently the nucleic acid based polymerase chain reaction is used as the reliable diagnostic platform and antigen/antibody detection immunoassays are playing the role of screening tests for early detection and prognosis in COVID-19 treatment.

Title: Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis Content: BACKGROUND: Ensuring accurate diagnosis is essential to limit the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 and for the clinical management of COVID-19. Although real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT- qPCR) is the current recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 acute infection, several factors such as requirement of special equipment and skilled staff limit the use of these time-consuming molecular techniques. Recently, several easy to perform rapid antigen detection tests were developed and recommended in some countries as the first line of diagnostic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of the Coris COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip. Study design. We performed a comparison study by testing nasopharyngeal samples with RT-qPCR and antigen rapid test. RESULTS: 148 nasopharyngeal swabs were tested. Amongst the 106 positive RT-qPCR samples, 32 were detected by the rapid antigen test, given an overall sensitivity of 30.2%. All the samples detected positive with the antigen rapid tests were also positive with RT-qPCR. CONCLUSIONS: Highest viral load is associated with better antigen detection rates. Unfortunately, the overall poor sensitivity of the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip does not allow using it alone as the frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Title: On Accelerated Testing for COVID-19 Using Group Testing Content: COVID-19 has resulted in a global health crisis that may become even more acute over the upcoming months. One of the main reasons behind the current rapid growth of COVID-19 in the U.S. population is the limited availability of testing kits and the relatively-high cost of screening tests. In this draft, we demonstrate the effectiveness of group testing (pooling) ideas to accelerate testing for COVID-19. This draft is semi-tutorial in nature and is written for a broad audience with interest in mathematical formulations relevant to COVID-19 testing. Therefore, ideas are presented through illustrative examples rather than through purely theoretical formulations. The focus is also on pools of size less than 64 such as what is practical with current RT-PCR technology.

Title: The challenges of covid-19 testing: Time for pathologists to rise to the occasion Content: An outbreak of novel coronavirus (Covid-19) was first reported in Wuhan, China in the late December 1 Since then, the positive cases have increased exponentially to 1 4 million (as of 8 April 2020) 2 The ability of a country to cope with increasing number of Covid-19 testing is the ultimate test Teaching/university hospitals should pull their resources and man-power to provide the muchneeded assistance to the demand of Covid-19 testing Inadequate testing could result in unrecognised Covid-19 infected individuals, roaming freely in the population The other issue is the sensitivity of test if samples were obtained from different sites Classically, the confirmation of diagnosis of Covid-19 depends on real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis to detect viral genetic material in either a nasal swab or bronchioalveolar lavage sample Wang et al (2020) reported that bronchioalveolar lavage sample has the highest sensitivity in identifying Covid-19, followed by sputum and nasal swab with positive rates of 93%, 72% and 63%, respectively 3 Furthermore, they found that nasal swab contained the highest concentration of viral load as it required less number of cycles to achieve higher copy numbers In some patients, viral genetic material was also identified in faeces and blood 3 While the reliability of testing is a concern, the safety of the laboratory staff also has to be kept in mind In this issue, there are three review articles on Covid-19, first article described the general properties of coronavirus, second article described the diagnostic performance of Covid-19 serology assay and third article described the importance of the site of sampling for Covid-19 4-6

Title: Comparative performance of four nucleic acid amplification tests for SARS-CoV-2 virus Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be screened and diagnosed through the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) have been rapidly developed and quickly applied to clinical testing during the pandemic. However, studies evaluating the performance of these NAAT assays are limited. We evaluated the performance of four NAATs, which were marked by the Conformité Européenne and widely used in China during the pandemic. Results showed that the analytical sensitivity of the four assays was significantly lower than that claimed by the NAAT manufacturers. The limit of detection (LOD) of Daan, Sansure, and Hybribio NAATs was 3000 copies/mL, whereas the LOD of Bioperfectus NAATs was 4000 copies/mL. The results of the consistency test using 46 samples showed that Daan, Sansure, and Hybribio NAATs could detect the samples with a specificity of 100% (30/30) and a sensitivity of 100% (16 /16), whereas Bioperfectus NAAT detected the samples with a specificity of 100% (30/30) and a sensitivity 81.25% (13/16). The sensitivity of Bioperfectus NAAT was lower than that of the three other NAATs; this finding was consistent with the result that Bioperfectus NAAT had a higher LOD than the three other kinds of NAATs. The four above mentioned reagents presented high specificity; however, for the detection of the samples with low virus concentration, Bioperfectus reagent had the risk of missing detection. Therefore, the LOD should be considered in the selection of SARS-CoV-2 NAATs.

Title: SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR Ct value distribution in Japan and possible utility of rapid antigen testing kit Content: The exact pathology of COVID-19 remains mostly unclear, and accurate epidemiological understanding and rapid testing are crucial to overcome this disease. Several types of nucleic acid tests (NAT) have been used in Japan, but information about the viral RNA load, determined by Ct values, of the patients is limited due to the small number of patients tested in each clinical institution and lack of standardization of the testing kits. We have been performing the qRT-PCR tests established by NIID, and the mean Ct value distribution of 62 cases, which are deemed (first-visit) patients, among the total of 88 positive cases tested in a 4-day window of early April, was 24.9 with SD=5.45. Recently approved antigen testing kits were also used in the same samples (62 positives) along with 100 negative cases, and it revealed the positive predictive value of 80.6% and negative predictive value of 100%, with an overall agreement rate of 92.6%. These results indicate that a certain number of patients with lower Ct values, existed in Japan when SARS-CoV-2 virus started to spread. The newly approved rapid antigen testing kit will be a useful tool to identify such populations rapidly.

Title: Testing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): a systematic review and clinical guide to molecular and serological in-vitro diagnostic assays Content: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has demanded rapid upscaling of in-vitro diagnostic assays to enable mass screening and testing of high-risk groups, and simultaneous ascertainment of robust data on past SARS-CoV-2 exposure at an individual and population level. To meet the exponential demand in testing, there has been an accelerated development of both molecular and serological assays across a plethora of platforms. In the present review, we discuss the current literature on these modalities including the nucleic acid amplification tests, direct viral antigen tests and the rapidly expanding laboratory based and point of care serological tests. This suite of complementary tests will inform crucial decisions by healthcare providers and policy makers and understanding their strengths and limitations will be critical to their judicious application for the development of algorithmic approaches to treatment and public health strategies.

Title: Comparison of Four Molecular In Vitro Diagnostic Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Specimens Content: The novel human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was first discovered in the city of Wuhan, Hubei province, China, causing an outbreak of pneumonia in January 2020. As of April 10, 2020, the virus has rapidly disseminated to over 200 countries and territories, causing more than 1.6 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 97,000 deaths worldwide. The clinical presentation of COVID-19 is fairly non-specific, and symptoms overlap with other seasonal respiratory infections concurrently circulating in the population. Further, it is estimated that up to 80% of infected individuals experience mild symptoms or are asymptomatic, confounding efforts to reliably diagnose COVID-19 empirically. To support infection control measures, there is an urgent need for rapid and accurate molecular diagnostics to identify COVID-19 positive patients. In the present study, we have evaluated the analytical sensitivity and clinical performance of four SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic assays granted Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA using nasopharyngeal swabs from symptomatic patients. This information is crucial for both laboratories and clinical teams, as decisions on which testing platform to implement are made.

Title: Antibody tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection: a meta-analysis Content: With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the associated Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is an imperative need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies measuring the accuracy of the various tests are usually underpowered and inconsistent, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted the literature search in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. For the statistical analysis we used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA) and the point-of-care (POC) Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA) that are based on immunochromatography. In total, we identified 38 eligible studies that include data from 7,848 individuals. The analyses showed that tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones, and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, irrespective of the method, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody type alone. All methods yielded high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods performed better in terms of sensitivity (90-94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 86%. ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. POC tests (LFIA), that are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies show high specificity but lower sensitivity and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.

Title: Comparison of Abbott ID Now and Abbott m2000 methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs from symptomatic patients. Content: The ID NOW COVID-19 (IDNCOV) assay performed on the ID Now Instrument (Abbott Diagnostics, Scarborough, Inc. Scarborough, ME) is a rapid diagnostic test that can be performed in a point of care setting equivalent to CLIA waived testing.….

Title: Development of a rapid test kit for SARS-CoV-2: an example of product design Content: We present an example of applying 'need-driven' product design principle to the development of a rapid test kit to detect SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19). The tests are intended for use in the field and, longer term, for home use. They detect whether a subject is currently infected with the virus and is infectious. The urgent need for large numbers of tests in field setting imposes constraints such as short test time and lack of access to specialist equipment, laboratories and skilled technicians to perform the test and interpret results. To meet these needs, an antigen test based on RT-LAMP with colorimetric readout was chosen. Direct use of swab sample with no RNA extraction was explored. After extensive experimental study (reported elsewhere), a rapid test kit has been fabricated to satisfy all design criteria.

Title: INSIGHT: a scalable isothermal NASBA-based platform for COVID-19 diagnosis Content: We present here INSIGHT (Isothermal NASBA-Sequencing based hIGH-througput Test): a two-stage COVID-19 testing strategy, using a combination of an isothermal NASBA reaction and next generation sequencing. From commercially acquired human saliva with spiked-in viral RNA as input, the first stage employs isothermal amplification of viral RNA to give a rapid result in one to two hours, using either fluorescence detection or a dipstick readout, whilst simultaneously incorporating sample-specific barcodes into the amplification product. In the first stage, fluorescent viral RNA detection can be consistently achieved at 10-100 copies per 20 µl reaction. The second stage pools post-amplification barcoded products from multiple samples for scalable sequencing that could be centralised, to further improve the accuracy of the test in a massively parallel way. Our two-stage testing strategy is suitable for further development into a home-based or point-of-care assay, and is potentially scalable to population level. IMPORTANT This protocol has not been validated on patient samples and should not be used for clinical diagnosis without further validation and certification. ***This is ongoing research to develop a testing strategy for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The Wellcome Sanger Institute is not in a position to develop this into a commercial product, but would be open to discussions with third parties about how they could develop this further to achieve the societal benefits of this work.***

Title: Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis Content: BACKGROUND: Ensuring accurate diagnosis is essential to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and for the clinical management of COVID-19. Although real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT- qPCR) is the current recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 acute infection, several factors such as requirement of special equipment and skilled staff limit the use of these time-consuming molecular techniques. Recently, several easy to perform rapid antigen detection tests were developed and recommended in some countries as the first line of diagnostic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of the Coris COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip test, a rapid immunochromatographic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, in comparison to RT-qPCR. RESULTS: 148 nasopharyngeal swabs were tested. Amongst the 106 positive RT-qPCR samples, 32 were detected by the rapid antigen test, given an overall sensitivity of 30.2%. All the samples detected positive with the antigen rapid test were also positive with RT-qPCR. CONCLUSIONS: Higher viral loads are associated with better antigen detection rates. Unfortunately, the overall poor sensitivity of the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip does not allow using it alone as the frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Title: The Appropriate Use of Testing for COVID-19 Content: Many public officials are calling for increased testing for the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and some governments have taken extraordinary measures to increase the availability of testing. However, little has been published about the sensitivity and specificity of the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) nasopharyngeal swabs that are commonly used for testing. This narrative review evaluates the literature regarding the accuracy of these tests, and makes recommendations based on this literature. In brief, a negative RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab test is insufficient to rule out COVID-19. Thus, over-reliance on the results of the test may be dangerous, and the push for widespread testing may be overstated.

Title: A novel comprehensive metric to assess COVID-19 testing outcomes: Effects of geography, government, and policy response Content: Testing and case identification are key strategies in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Contact tracing and isolation are only possible if cases have been identified. The effectiveness of testing must be tracked, but a single comprehensive metric is not available to assess testing effectiveness, and no timely estimates of case detection rate are available globally, making inter-country comparisons difficult. The purpose of this paper was to propose a single, comprehensive metric, called the COVID-19 Testing Index (CovTI) scaled from 0 to 100, that incorporated several testing metrics. The index was based on case-fatality rate, test positivity rate, active cases, and an estimate of the detection rate. It used parsimonious modeling to estimate the true total number of COVID-19 cases based on deaths, testing, health system capacity, and government transparency. Publicly reported data from 188 countries and territories were included in the index. Estimates of detection rates aligned with previous estimates in literature (R2=0.97). As of June 3, 2020, the states with the highest CovTI included Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Thailand, and some island nations. Globally, CovTI increased from April 20 ([x]=43.2) to June 3 ([x]=52.2) but declined in ca. 10% of countries. Bivariate analyses showed the average in countries with open public testing policies (59.7, 95% CI 55.6-63.8) were significantly higher than countries with no testing policy (30.2, 95% CI 18.1-42.3) (p<0.0001). A multiple linear regression model assessed the association of independent grouping variables with CovTI. Open public testing and extensive contact tracing were shown to significantly increase CovTI, after adjusting for extrinsic factors, including geographic isolation and centralized forms of government. This tool may be useful for policymakers to assess testing effectiveness, inform decisions, and identify model countries. It may also serve as a tool for researchers in analyses by combining it with other databases.

Title: Evaluation of COVID-19 RT-qPCR test in multi-sample pools Content: BACKGROUND: The recent emergence of SARS-CoV-2 lead to a current pandemic of unprecedented scale. Though diagnostic tests are fundamental to the ability to detect and respond, overwhelmed healthcare systems are already experiencing shortages of reagents associated with this test, calling for a lean immediately-applicable protocol. METHODS: RNA extracts of positive samples were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-qPCR, alone or in pools of different sizes (2-, 4-, 8- ,16-, 32- and 64-sample pools) with negative samples. Transport media of additional 3 positive samples were also tested when mixed with transport media of negative samples in pools of 8. RESULTS: A single positive sample can be detected in pools of up to 32 samples, using the standard kits and protocols, with an estimated false negative rate of 10%. Detection of positive samples diluted in even up to 64 samples may also be attainable, though may require additional amplification cycles. Single positive samples can be detected when pooling either after or prior to RNA extraction. CONCLUSIONS: As it uses the standard protocols, reagents and equipment, this pooling method can be applied immediately in current clinical testing laboratories. We hope that such implementation of a pool test for COVID-19 would allow expanding current screening capacities thereby enabling the expansion of detection in the community, as well as in close organic groups, such as hospital departments, army units, or factory shifts.

Title: A new system in qualitative RT-PCR detecting SARS-CoV-2 in biological samples: an Italian experience. Content: In the last moths the world was faced with the pandemic of a new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and the majority of the Nations have yet to come out of it. Numerous assays have emerged to meet SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic needs. A clear knowledge of these assays parameters is essential to choose the proper test by clinical microbiologists. Unfortunately, the latter cannot be the unique criterion that guides test selection as - given the great demand - shortcomings of commercial kits is also a great issue. Aimed by the intention of overcoming both difficulties we have developed a new qualitative RT-PCR probe based for COVID-19 detection. The system detects three genes of SARS-CoV-2: RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), envelope (E) and nucleocapsid (N) and {beta}-actin gene used as endogenous internal control. The results of our assay show a total agreement with those obtained using a commercially available kit, with the exception of two specimens which did not pass the endogenous internal control. Moreover, our kit was designed to be open either for nucleic acid extraction step or on the RT-PCR assay to be carried out on several instruments. Thus, it is free from the industrial production logics of closed systems and conversely it is hypothetically available for distribution on large numbers in any microbiological laboratories. Presently, the kit is currently distributed worldwide

Title: Performance & Quality Evaluation of Marketed COVID-19 RNA Detection Kits Content: Compared to other coronaviruses, COVID-19 has a longer incubation period and features asymptomatic infection at a high rate (>25%). Therefore, early detection of infection is the key to early isolation and treatment. Direct detection of the virus itself has advantages over indirect detection. Currently, the most sensitive and commercially validated method for COVID-19 testing is RT-qPCR, designed to detect amplified virus-specific RNA. Reliable testing has proven to be a bottleneck in early diagnosis of virus infection in all countries dealing with the pandemic. Significant performance and quality issues with available testing kits have caused confusion and serious health risks. In order to provide better understanding of the Quality and performance of COVID-19 RNA detection kits on the market, we designed a system to evaluate the specificity (quantitation), sensitivity (LOD) and robustness of the kits using positive RNA and pseudovirus controls based on COVID-19 genomic sequence. We evaluated 8 Nucleic Acid qPCR Kits approved in China, some of which are also approved in the US and EU. Our study showed that half of these 8 kits lack 1:1 linear relationship for virus RNA copy: qPCR signal. Of the 4 with linear response, 2 demonstrated sensitivity at 1 Copy viral RNA/Reaction, suitable for early detection of virus infection. Furthermore, we established the best RNA extraction, handling and qPCR procedures allowing highly sensitive and consistent performance using BGI qPCR kits. Our study provides an effective method to assess and compare performance quality of all COVID-19 nucleic acid testing kits, globally.

Title: Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Korea Content: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which began in December 2019, is still ongoing in Korea, with >9,000 confirmed cases as of March 25, 2020 COVID-19 is a severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and real-time reverse transcription-PCR is currently the most reliable diagnostic method for COVID-19 around the world Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and the Korea Centers for Disease Prevention and Control propose guidelines for diagnosing COVID-19 in clinical laboratories in Korea These guidelines are based on other related domestic and international guidelines, as well as expert opinions and include the selection of test subjects, selection of specimens, diagnostic methods, interpretation of test results, and biosafety

Title: Testing for SARS‐CoV‐2: the day the world turned its attention to the clinical laboratory Content: In the last few months, an unprecedented number of laboratory tests for COVID‐19 have been developed at a remarkable speed. With the rapid adoption of these tests into clinical practice, combined with the widespread publicity they received, questions arose related to the different types of tests, their utility, performance, and regulatory approval status. The aim of this publication is to provide a general landscape of laboratory testing for COVID‐19 and offer a historical and regulatory perspective associated with them. Specifically, we aim to elaborate on the regulatory complexities of diagnostic testing in the U.S. and its implications to the present outbreak, as well as provide a synopsis of laboratory tests that have been developed for COVID‐19. We will first address the detection of Sars‐Cov‐2 directly by either nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) or by the detection of the viral protein for active infections. Subsequently, we will provide an overview of serological tests that can aid not only in diagnosis but additionally help to identify prior infections and potential immunity.

Title: A Rapid COVID-19 RT-PCR Detection Assay for Low Resource Settings Content: Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay is the gold standard recommended to test for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. It has been used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and several other companies in their Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) assays. RT-qPCR requires expensive equipment such as RNA isolation instruments and real-time PCR thermal cyclers, which are not available in many low resource settings and developing countries. As a pandemic, COVID-19 has quickly spread to the rest of the world. Many underdeveloped and developing counties do not have the means for fast and accurate COVID-19 detection to control this outbreak. Using COVID-19 positive clinical specimens, we demonstrated that RT-PCR assays can be performed in as little as 12 minutes using untreated samples, heat-inactivated samples, or extracted RNA templates. Rapid RT-PCR was achieved using thin-walled PCR tubes and a setup including sous vide immersion heaters/circulators. Our data suggest that rapid RT-PCR can be implemented for sensitive and specific molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 in situations where sophisticated laboratory instruments are not available.

Title: Evaluating the adequacy of Prima Covid-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test for the assessment of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus Content: The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020 found health authorities worldwide unprepared to control the pandemic. The adoption of accurate, rapid and inexpensive methods to identify infected subjects in the general population is of paramount relevance for the control of the disease. We evaluated one of the available serological tests, the Prima Lab Covid-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Tests, on 739 volunteers. We first assessed the test's reproducibility by administering it twice on the same day on 104 subjects obtaining and overall score of 93 percent. Since the intensity of the color in the test line regions varies depending on the concentration of Covid-19 antibodies in each sample and that the determination of the positivity depends strictly on the subjective assessment by the reader, after excluding the subjects whose color intensity was too tenuous to be deemed unquestionably positive by the reader the reproducibility increased to 96%. The test would not perform properly for 6 subjects for a very limited overall technical failure of 0.83%. For 138 subjects information was available regarding a previous Real Time PCR nasopharyngeal swab test performed elsewhere. The correspondence of positive results between the two tests was 90.58% (125/138). In spite of some limitation owing especially to the choice of a self selected population sample, we conclude that Prima Lab Covid-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test represents a low-cost, easily applicable and reproducible tool in detecting SARS-Cov-2 diffusion in the general population.

Title: A simplified SARS-CoV-2 detection protocol for research laboratories Content: Widespread testing is required to limit the current public health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple tests protocols have been authorized by the food and drugs administration under an emergency use authorization (EUA). The majority of these protocols are based on the gold-standard RT-qPCR test pioneered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, there is still a widespread lack of testing in the US and many of the clinical diagnostics protocols require extensive human labor and materials, such as RNA extraction kits, that could face supply shortages and present biosafety concerns. Given the need to develop alternative reagents and approaches to allow nucleic-acid testing in the face of heightened demand and potential shortages, we have developed a simplified SARS-CoV-2 testing protocol adapted for its use in laboratory research with minimal molecular biology equipment and expertise. The protocol requires minimal BSL1 biosafety level precautions and facilities.

Title: Development of a rapid test kit for SARS-CoV-2: an example of product design Content: We present an example of applying ‘need-driven’ product design principle to the development of a rapid test kit to detect SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19). The tests are intended for use in the field and, longer term, for home use. They detect whether a subject is currently infected with the virus and is infectious. The urgent need for large numbers of tests in field setting imposes constraints such as short test time and lack of access to specialist equipment, laboratories and skilled technicians to perform the test and interpret results. To meet these needs, an antigen test based on RT-LAMP with colorimetric readout was chosen. Direct use of swab sample with no RNA extraction was explored. After extensive experimental study (reported elsewhere), a rapid test kit has been fabricated to satisfy all design criteria.

Title: COVID-19 Molecular Testing in Korea: Practical Essentials and Answers From Experts Based on Experiences of Emergency Use Authorization Assays Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Early detection of COVID-19 and immediate isolation of infected patients from the naive population are important to prevent further pandemic spread of the infection. Real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA is currently the most reliable diagnostic method for confirming COVID-19 worldwide. Guidelines for clinical laboratories on the COVID-19 diagnosis have been recently published by Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, these formal guidelines do not address common practical laboratory issues related to COVID-19 real-time RT-PCR testing and their solutions. Therefore, this guideline is intended as a practical and technical supplement to the "Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea".

Title: COVID-19 Molecular Testing in Korea: Practical Essentials and Answers From Experts Based on Experiences of Emergency Use Authorization Assays. Content: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Early detection of COVID-19 and immediate isolation of infected patients from the naive population are important to prevent further pandemic spread of the infection. Real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA is currently the most reliable diagnostic method for confirming COVID-19 worldwide. Guidelines for clinical laboratories on the COVID-19 diagnosis have been recently published by Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, these formal guidelines do not address common practical laboratory issues related to COVID-19 real-time RT-PCR testing and their solutions. Therefore, this guideline is intended as a practical and technical supplement to the "Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea".

Title: Sensitivity and specificity of a rapid test for assessment of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in a community-based setting in Brazil Content: Background: While the recommended laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is a molecular based assay, population-based studies to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 usually use serological assays. Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a rapid diagnostic test for COVID-19 compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Methods: We evaluated the sensitivity using a panel of finger prick blood samples from participants >18 years of age that had been tested for COVID-19 by qRT-PCR. For assessing specificity, we used serum samples from the 1982 Pelotas (Brazil) Birth Cohort participants collected in 2012 with no exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Results: The sensitivity of the test was 77.1% (95% CI 66.6 - 85.6), based upon 83 subjects who had tested positive for qRT-PCR at least 10 days before the rapid diagnostic test (RDT). Based upon 100 sera samples, specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 92.9 - 99.8). There was substantial agreement (Kappa score 0.76) between the qRT-PCR results and the RDT. Interpretation. The validation results are well in line with previous assessments of the test, and confirm that it is sufficiently precise for epidemiological studies aimed at monitoring levels and trends of the COVID-19 pandemic.