Comparison of clinical laboratory tests between bacterial sepsis and SARS-CoV-2-associated viral sepsis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ren C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7399032 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparison of clinical laboratory tests between bacterial sepsis and SARS-CoV-2-associated viral sepsis.
Ren Chao C Yao Ren-Qi RQ Ren Di D Li Ying Y Feng Yong-Wen YW Yao Yong-Ming YM
Military Medical Research 20200804 1
Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that is characterized by multiple organ dysfunction due to abnormal host response to various pathogens, like bacteria, fungi and virus. The differences between viral and bacterial sepsis are indeed of great significance to deepen the understanding of the pathogenesis of sepsis, especially under pandemics of SARS-CoV-2 infection. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid development of tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Studies are required to assess the relative performance of different assays. Here, we compared the performance of two commercial assays, the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics) and Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Cepheid®) tests, and a laboratory developed RT-PCR test adapted for use on the Hologic® Panther Fusion® (Hologic®) instrument as well as Bio-Rad and QIAGEN real-time PCR detection systems. Performance characteristics for each test were determined by testing clinical specimens and reference material. All assays detect the pan-Sarbecovirus E (envelope structural protein) gene plus a SARS-CoV-2-specific target. The limit of detection for the E gene target varied from ∼2 copies/reaction to >30 copies/reaction. Due to assay-specific differences in sample processing and nucleic acid extraction, the overall analytical sensitivity ranged from 24 copies/mL specimen to 574 copies/mL specimen. Despite these differences, there was 100 % agreement between the commercial and laboratory developed tests. No false-negative or false-positive SARS-CoV-2 results were observed and there was no cross-reactivity with common respiratory viruses, including endemic coronaviruses.
| S-EPMC7482591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We examined the usefulness of five COVID-19 antibody detection tests using 114 serum samples at various time points from 34 Japanese COVID-19 patients. We examined Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 from Roche, and four immunochromatography tests from Hangzhou Laihe Biotech, Artron Laboratories, Chil, and Nadal. In the first week after onset, Elecsys had 40% positivity in Group S (severe cases) but was negative in Group M (mild-moderate cases). The immunochromatography kits showed 40-60% and 0-8% positivity in Groups S and M, respectively. In the second week, Elecsys showed 75% and 50% positivity, and the immunochromatography tests showed 5-80% and 50-75% positivity in Groups S and M, respectively. After the third week, Elecsys showed 100% positivity in both groups. The immunochromatography kits showed 100% positivity in Group S. In Group M, positivity decreased to 50% for Chil and 75-89% for Artron and Lyher. Elecsys and immunochromatography kits had 91-100% specificity. Elecsys had comparable chronological change of cut-off index values in the two groups from the second week to the sixth week. The current SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection tests do not provide meaningful interpretation of severity and infection status. Its use might be limited to short-term epidemiological studies.
| S-EPMC7870088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), clinicians have tried every effort to understand the disease, and a brief portrait of its clinical features have been identified. In clinical practice, we noticed that many severe or critically ill COVID-19 patients developed typical clinical manifestations of shock, including cold extremities and weak peripheral pulses, even in the absence of overt hypotension. Understanding the mechanism of viral sepsis in COVID-19 is warranted for exploring better clinical care for these patients. With evidence collected from autopsy studies on COVID-19 and basic science research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and SARS-CoV, we have put forward several hypotheses about SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis after multiple rounds of discussion among basic science researchers, pathologists, and clinicians working on COVID-19. We hypothesise that a process called viral sepsis is crucial to the disease mechanism of COVID-19. Although these ideas might be proven imperfect or even wrong later, we believe they can provide inputs and guide directions for basic research at this moment.
| S-EPMC7164875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) can accelerate SARS-CoV-2 testing. As some AgPOCTs have become available, interest is growing in their utility and performance. Here we aimed to compare the analytical sensitivity and specificity of seven commercially available AgPOCT devices.MethodsIn a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we compared AgPOCT products from seven suppliers: the Abbott Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, the RapiGEN BIOCREDIT COVID-19 Ag, the Healgen Coronavirus Ag Rapid Test Cassette (Swab), the Coris BioConcept COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip, the R-Biopharm RIDA QUICK SARS-CoV-2 Antigen, the nal von minden NADAL COVID-19 Ag Test, and the Roche-SD Biosensor SARS-CoV Rapid Antigen Test. Tests were evaluated on recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein, cultured endemic and emerging coronaviruses, stored respiratory samples with known SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, stored samples from patients with respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2, and self-sampled swabs from healthy volunteers. We estimated analytical sensitivity in terms of approximate viral concentrations (quantified by real-time RT-PCR) that yielded positive AgPOCT results, and specificity in terms of propensity to generate false-positive results.FindingsIn 138 clinical samples with quantified SARS-CoV-2 viral load, the 95% limit of detection (concentration at which 95% of test results were positive) in six of seven AgPOCT products ranged between 2·07 × 106 and 2·86 × 107 copies per swab, with an outlier (RapiGEN) at 1·57 × 1010 copies per swab. The assays showed no cross-reactivity towards cell culture or tissue culture supernatants containing any of the four endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV‑229E, HCoV‑NL63, HCoV‑OC43, or HCoV‑HKU1) or MERS-CoV, with the exception of the Healgen assay in one repeat test on HCoV-HKU1 supernatant. SARS-CoV was cross-detected by all assays. Cumulative specificities among stored clinical samples with non-SARS-CoV-2 infections (n=100) and self-samples from healthy volunteers (n=35; cumulative sample n=135) ranged between 98·5% (95% CI 94·2-99·7) and 100·0% (97·2-100·0) in five products, with two outliers at 94·8% (89·2-97·7; R-Biopharm) and 88·9% (82·1-93·4; Healgen). False-positive results did not appear to be associated with any specific respiratory pathogen.InterpretationThe sensitivity range of most AgPOCTs overlaps with SARS-CoV-2 viral loads typically observed in the first week of symptoms, which marks the infectious period in most patients. The AgPOCTs with limit of detections that approximate virus concentrations at which patients are infectious might enable shortcuts in decision making in various areas of health care and public health.FundingEU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, German Ministry of Research, German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, German Ministry of Health, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
| S-EPMC8026170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSequencing of SARS-CoV-2 from rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) can bolster viral genomic surveillance efforts; however, approaches to maximise and standardise pathogen genome recovery from RDTs remain underdeveloped. We aimed to systematically optimise the elution of genetic material from RDT components and to evaluate the efficacy of RDT sequencing for outbreak investigation.MethodsIn this laboratory and cohort-based study we seeded RDTs with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 to optimise the elution of genomic material from RDT lateral flow strips. We measured the effect of changes in buffer type, time in buffer, and rotation on PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value. We recruited individuals older than 18 years residing in the greater Boston area, MA, USA, from July 18 to Nov 5, 2022, via email advertising to students and staff at Harvard University, MA, USA, and via broad social media advertising. All individuals recruited were within 5 days of a positive diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2; no other relevant exclusion criteria were applied. Each individual completed two RDTs and one PCR swab. On Dec 29, 2022, we also collected RDTs from a convenience sample of individuals who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and associated with an outbreak at a senior housing facility in MA, USA. We extracted all returned PCR swabs and RDT components (ie, swab, strip, or buffer); samples with a Ct of less than 40 were subject to amplicon sequencing. We compared the efficacy of elution and sequencing across RDT brands and components and used RDT-derived sequences to infer transmission links within the outbreak at the senior housing facility. We conducted metagenomic sequencing of negative RDTs from symptomatic individuals living in the senior housing facility.FindingsNeither elution duration of greater than 10 min nor rotation during elution impacted viral titres. Elution in Buffer AVL (Ct=31·4) and Tris-EDTA Buffer (Ct=30·8) were equivalent (p=0·34); AVL outperformed elution in lysis buffer and 50% lysis buffer (Ct=40·0, p=0·0029 for both) as well as Universal Viral Transport Medium (Ct=36·7, p=0·079). Performance of RDT strips was poorer than that of matched PCR swabs (mean Ct difference 10·2 [SD 4·3], p<0·0001); however, RDT swabs performed similarly to PCR swabs (mean Ct difference 4·1 [5·2], p=0·055). No RDT brand significantly outperformed another. Across sample types, viral load predicted the viral genome assembly length. We assembled greater than 80% complete genomes from 12 of 17 RDT-derived swabs, three of 18 strips, and four of 11 residual buffers. We generated outbreak-associated SARS-CoV-2 genomes using both amplicon and metagenomic sequencing and identified multiple introductions of the virus that resulted in downstream transmission.InterpretationRDT-derived swabs are a reasonable alternative to PCR swabs for viral genomic surveillance and outbreak investigation. RDT-derived lateral flow strips yield accurate, but significantly fewer, viral reads than matched PCR swabs. Metagenomic sequencing of negative RDTs can identify viruses that might underlie patient symptoms.FundingThe National Science Foundation, the Hertz Foundation, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Harvard Medical School, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Broad Institute and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
| S-EPMC11322816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December 2019 and has quickly become a worldwide pandemic. In response, many diagnostic manufacturers have developed molecular assays for SARS-CoV-2 under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) pathway. This study compared three of these assays, the Hologic Panther Fusion SARS-CoV-2 assay (Fusion), the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 assay (Aptima), and the BioFire Defense COVID-19 test (BioFire), to determine analytical and clinical performance as well as workflow. All three assays showed similar limits of detection (LODs) using inactivated virus, with 100% detection, ranging from 500 to 1,000 genome equivalents/ml, whereas use of a quantified RNA transcript standard showed the same trend but had values ranging from 62.5 to 125 copies/ml, confirming variability in absolute quantification of reference standards. The clinical correlation found that the Fusion and BioFire assays had a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 98.7%, followed by the Aptima assay at 94.7%, compared to the consensus result. All three assays exhibited 100% negative percent agreement (NPA). Analysis of discordant results revealed that all four samples missed by the Aptima assay had cycle threshold (Ct ) values of >37 by the Fusion assay. In conclusion, while all three assays showed similar relative LODs, we showed differences in absolute LODs depending on which standard was employed. In addition, the Fusion and BioFire assays showed better clinical performance, while the Aptima assay showed a modest decrease in overall PPA. These findings should be kept in mind when making platform testing decisions.
| S-EPMC7448672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo assist clinicians with identifying children at risk of severe outcomes, we assessed the association between laboratory findings and severe outcomes among severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected children and determined if SARS-CoV-2 test result status modified the associations.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of participants tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in 41 pediatric emergency departments in 10 countries. Participants were hospitalized, had laboratory testing performed, and completed 14-day follow-up. The primary objective was to assess the associations between laboratory findings and severe outcomes. The secondary objective was to determine if the SARS-CoV-2 test result modified the associations.ResultsWe included 1817 participants; 522 (28.7%) SARS-CoV-2 test-positive and 1295 (71.3%) test-negative. Seventy-five (14.4%) test-positive and 174 (13.4%) test-negative children experienced severe outcomes. In regression analysis, we found that among SARS-CoV-2-positive children, procalcitonin ≥0.5 ng/mL (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 9.14; 95% CI, 2.90-28.80), ferritin >500 ng/mL (aOR, 7.95; 95% CI, 1.89-33.44), D-dimer ≥1500 ng/mL (aOR, 4.57; 95% CI, 1.12-18.68), serum glucose ≥120 mg/dL (aOR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.06-3.81), lymphocyte count <1.0 × 109/L (aOR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.34-7.69), and platelet count <150 × 109/L (aOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.31-6.07) were associated with severe outcomes. Evaluation of the interaction term revealed that a positive SARS-CoV-2 result increased the associations with severe outcomes for elevated procalcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, and for reduced lymphocyte and platelet counts.ConclusionsSpecific laboratory parameters are associated with severe outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected children, and elevated serum procalcitonin, CRP, and D-dimer and low absolute lymphocyte and platelet counts were more strongly associated with severe outcomes in children testing positive compared with those testing negative.
| S-EPMC10588618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the gold standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the clinical performance of these tests is still poorly understood, particularly with regard to disease course, patient-specific factors, and viral shedding. From 10 March to 1 May 2020, NewYork-Presbyterian laboratories performed 27,377 SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays from 22,338 patients. Repeat testing was performed for 3,432 patients, of which 2,413 had initial negative and 802 had initial positive results. Repeat-tested patients were more likely to have severe disease and low viral loads. The negative predictive value of the first-day result among repeat-tested patients was 81.3% The clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays was estimated between 58% and 96%, depending on the unknown number of false-negative results in single-tested patients. Conversion to negative was unlikely to occur before 15 to 20 days after initial testing or 20 to 30 days after the onset of symptoms, with 50% conversion occurring at 28 days after initial testing. Conversion from first-day negative to positive results increased linearly with each day of testing, reaching 25% probability in 20 days. Sixty patients fluctuated between positive and negative results over several weeks, suggesting that caution is needed when single-test results are acted upon. In summary, our study provides estimates of the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays and suggests time frames for appropriate repeat testing, namely, 15 to 20 days after a positive test and the same day or next 2 days after a negative test for patients with high suspicion for COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7383556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveValidate the performance characteristics of two analyte specific, laboratory developed tests (LDTs) for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA (sgRNA) and viral load on the Hologic Panther Fusion® using the Open Access functionality.MethodsCustom-designed primers/probe sets targeting the SARS-CoV-2 Envelope gene (E) and subgenomic E were optimized. A 20-day performance validation following laboratory developed test requirements was conducted to assess assay precision, accuracy, analytical sensitivity/specificity, lower limit of detection and reportable range.ResultsQuantitative SARS-CoV-2 sgRNA (LDT-Quant sgRNA) assay, which measures intermediates of replication, and viral load (LDT-Quant VLCoV) assay demonstrated acceptable performance. Both assays were linear with an R2 and slope equal to 0.99 and 1.00, respectively. Assay precision was evaluated between 4-6 Log10 with a maximum CV of 2.6% and 2.5% for LDT-Quant sgRNA and LDT-Quant VLCoV respectively. Using negative or positive SARS-CoV-2 human nasopharyngeal swab samples, both assays were accurate (kappa coefficient of 1.00 and 0.92). Common respiratory flora and other viral pathogens were not detected and did not interfere with the detection or quantification by either assay. Based on 95% detection, the assay LLODs were 729 and 1206 Copies/mL for the sgRNA and VL load LDTs, respectively.ConclusionThe LDT-Quant sgRNA and LDT-Quant VLCoV demonstrated good analytical performance. These assays could be further investigated as alternative monitoring assays for viral replication; and thus, medical management in clinical settings which could inform isolation/quarantine requirements.
| S-EPMC10309597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo define the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 antigen, viral load determined by RT-qPCR, and viral culture detection. Presumptively, viral culture can provide a surrogate measure for infectivity of sampled individuals and thereby inform how and where to most appropriately deploy antigen and nucleic acid amplification-based diagnostic testing modalities.MethodsWe compared the antigen testing results from three lateral flow and one microfluidics assay to viral culture detection and viral load determination performed in parallel in up to 189 nasopharyngeal swab samples positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sample viral loads, determined by RT-qPCR, were distributed across the range of viral load values observed in our testing population.ResultsAntigen tests were predictive of viral culture positivity, with the LumiraDx microfluidics method showing enhanced sensitivity (90%; 95% CI 83-94%) compared with the BD Veritor (74%, 95% CI 65-81%), CareStart (74%, 95% CI 65-81%) and Oscar Corona (74%, 95% CI 65-82%) lateral flow antigen tests. Antigen and viral culture positivity were also highly correlated with sample viral load, with areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves of 0.94 to 0.97 and 0.92, respectively. A viral load threshold of 100 000 copies/mL was 95% sensitive (95% CI, 90-98%) and 72% specific (95% CI, 60-81%) for predicting viral culture positivity. Adjusting for sample dilution inherent in our study design, sensitivities of antigen tests were ≥95% for detection of viral culture positive samples with viral loads >106 genome copies/mL, although specificity of antigen testing was imperfect.DiscussionAntigen testing results and viral culture were correlated. For culture positive samples, the sensitivity of antigen tests was high at high viral loads that are likely associated with significant infectivity. Therefore, our data provides support for use of antigen testing in ruling out infectivity at the time of sampling.
| S-EPMC9293398 | biostudies-literature