Search

Background Seroprevalence studies of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, including asymptomatic and past infections, are important to estimate the scale of the disease outbreak and to establish quarantine measures. We evaluated the clinical performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays available in Korea for use in seroprevalence studies. Methods The sensitivity, specificity, cross-reactivity, and interference of five SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays were evaluated using the following: 398 serum samples from confirmed COVID-19 patients, 510 negative control samples from before 2018 (pre-pandemic), 163 serum samples from patients with SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and other viral infections, and five samples for the interference study. Results The sensitivities of the five assays ranged from 92.2% to 98%, and their specificities, including cross-reactivity and interference, ranged from 97.5% to 100%. The agreement rates were excellent (kappa >0.9). Adjustment of the cutoff values could be considered through ROC curve analysis. The positive predictive values of the individual assays varied from 3.5% to 100% at a 0.1% prevalence but were as high as ≥95% when two assays were combined. Conclusions The prevalence of COVID-19 in Korea is considered to be exceptionally low at present; thus, we recommend using a combination of two or more SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays rather than a single assay. These results could help select SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays for COVID-19 seroprevalence studies in Korea.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA quantities, measured by reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), have been proposed to stratify clinical risk or determine analytical performance targets. We investigated reproducibility and how setting diagnostic cutoffs altered the clinical sensitivity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing. Methods Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 RNA distributions [quantification cycle (Cq) and copies/mL] from more than 6000 patients from 3 clinical laboratories in United Kingdom, Belgium, and the Republic of Korea were analyzed. Impact of Cq cutoffs on clinical sensitivity was assessed. The June/July 2020 INSTAND external quality assessment scheme SARS-CoV-2 materials were used to estimate laboratory reported copies/mL and to estimate the variation in copies/mL for a given Cq. Results When the WHO-suggested Cq cutoff of 25 was applied, the clinical sensitivity dropped to about 16%. Clinical sensitivity also dropped to about 27% when a simulated limit of detection of 106 copies/mL was applied. The interlaboratory variation for a given Cq value was >1000 fold in copies/mL (99% CI). Conclusion While RT-qPCR has been instrumental in the response to COVID-19, we recommend Cq (cycle threshold or crossing point) values not be used to set clinical cutoffs or diagnostic performance targets due to poor interlaboratory reproducibility; calibrated copy-based units (used elsewhere in virology) offer more reproducible alternatives. We also report a phenomenon where diagnostic performance may change relative to the effective reproduction number. Our findings indicate that the disparities between patient populations across time are an important consideration when evaluating or deploying diagnostic tests. This is especially relevant to the emergency situation of an evolving pandemic.

Exploration of biomarkers to predict the severity of COVID-19 is important to reduce mortality. Upon COVID-19 infection, neutrophil extracellular traps (NET) are formed, which leads to a cytokine storm and host damage. Hence, the extent of NET formation may reflect disease progression and predict mortality in COVID-19.We measured 4 NET parameters - cell-free double stranded DNA (cell-free dsDNA), neutrophil elastase, citrullinated histone H3 (Cit-H3), and histone - DNA complex - in 188 COVID-19 patients and 20 healthy controls. Survivors (n=166) were hospitalized with or without oxygen supplementation, while non-survivors (n=22) expired during in-hospital treatment.Cell-free dsDNA was significantly elevated in non-survivors in comparison with survivors and controls. The survival rate of patients with high levels of cell-free dsDNA, neutrophil elastase, and Cit-H3 was significantly lower than that of patients with low levels. These three markers significantly correlated with inflammatory markers (absolute neutrophil count and C-reactive protein).Since the increase in NET parameters indicates the unfavourable course of COVID-19 infection, patients predisposed to poor outcome can be rapidly managed through risk stratification by using these NET parameters.

In response to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, an online laboratory surveillance system was established to monitor severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) real-time reverse transcription-PCR (rRT-PCR) testing capacities and results. SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR testing data were collected from 97 clinical laboratories, including 84 medical institutions and 13 independent clinical laboratories in Korea. We assessed the testing capacities to utilize SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR based on surveillance data obtained from February 7th to June 4th, 2020 and evaluated positive result characteristics according to the reagents used and sample types. A total of 1,890,319 SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR testing were performed, 2.3% of which were positive. Strong correlations were observed between the envelope (E) gene and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp)/nucleocapsid (N) genes threshold cycle (Ct) values for each reagent. No statistically significant differences in gene Ct values were observed between the paired upper and lower respiratory tract samples, except in the N gene for nasopharyngeal swab and sputum samples. Our study showed that clinical laboratories in Korea have rapidly expanded their testing capacities in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, with a peak daily capacity of 34,193 tests. Rapid expansion in testing capacity is a critical component of the national response to the ongoing pandemic.

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.

In view of this pandemic, as of February 2020, South Korea has the second high est number of confirmed cases in the world. Herein, we report four confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in the early stage of the pandemic in South Korea and describe the identification, diagnosis, clinical course, and management, including one patient’s initial mild symptoms at presentation and their progression to pneumonia on day 21 of illness. Within 48 hours of hospital ization, all four patients underwent evaluation for initial laboratory parameters, COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and chest computed tomography (CT) findings. All four mild COVID-19 patients were discharged, and they were re-examined 14 days after discharge. Despite all four of them being asymp tomatic, one patient was re-admitted after confirmation of COVID-19 through PCR viral nucleic acid detection. She could be discharged after 7 days with two subsequent negative COVID-19 PCR at 24-hour intervals. Patients with mild COVID-19 generally have normal follow-up chest CT scans after discharge, even if the early chest CT definitely indicates pneumonia. Re-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 PCR positive results after discharge were not related to her ini tial chest CT, lab, symptoms compared other three patients.

To validate the specimen-pooling strategy for real-time reverse transcription PCR detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, we generated different pools including positive specimens, reflecting the distribution of cycle threshold values at initial diagnosis. Cumulative sensitivities of tested pool sizes suggest pooling of

Background: Due to the extreme infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription (RT) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays are urgently needed in order to facilitate infectious disease surveillance and control. The purpose of this study was to evaluate three sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays—BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire RP 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2—using clinical samples. Methods: A total of 77 leftover nasopharyngeal swab (NP) swabs (36 positives and 41 negatives) confirmed by reference SARS-CoV-2 RT real-time (q) PCR assay were collected. The clinical sample concordance, as specified by their respective emergency use authorizations (EUAs), in comparison to the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay, was assessed. Results: The results showed that all three sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays provided perfectly concordant results consistent with the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay. The BioFire COVID-19 Test exhibited the best turnaround time (TAT) compared to the other assays, regardless of the test results, using one-way analysis of variance followed by Scheffe’s post hoc test (p < 0.001). The Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 showed a shorter average TAT (mean ± standard deviation, 49.9 ± 3.1 min) in the positive samples compared to that (55.7 ± 2.5 min) of the negative samples. Conclusions: Our evaluation demonstrates that the BioFire COVID-19 Test, BioFire RP 2.1, and Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assays compare favorably to the reference SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay, along with a 100% concordance in assay results for clinical samples and an acceptable analytical performance at their guaranteed limits of detection. The addition of a widely used simultaneous sample-to-answer SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay will contribute to the number of medical laboratories able to test for COVID-19.

The sensitivity of molecular diagnostics could be affected by nucleotide variants in pathogen genes, and the sites affected by such variants should be monitored. We report a single-nucleotide variant (SNV) in the nucleocapsid (N) gene of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), i.e., G29179T, which impairs the diagnostic sensitivity of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). We observed significant differences between the threshold cycle (Ct) values for envelope (E) and N genes and confirmed the SNV as the cause of the differences using Sanger sequencing. This SNV, G29179T, is the most prevalent in Korea and is associated with the B.1.497 virus lineage, which is dominant in Korea. Clinical laboratories should be aware of the various SNVs in the SARS-CoV-2 genome and consider their potential effects on the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019.

In managing patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), early identification of those at high risk and real‐time monitoring of disease progression to severe COVID‐19 is a major challenge. We aimed to identify potential early prognostic protein markers and to expand understanding of proteome dynamics during clinical progression of the disease. We performed in‐depth proteome profiling on 137 sera, longitudinally collected from 25 patients with COVID‐19 (non‐severe patients, n = 13; patients who progressed to severe COVID‐19, n = 12). We identified 11 potential biomarkers, including the novel markers IGLV3‐19 and BNC2, as early potential prognostic indicators of severe COVID‐19. These potential biomarkers are mainly involved in biological processes associated with humoral immune response, interferon signalling, acute phase response, lipid metabolism, and platelet degranulation. We further revealed that the longitudinal changes of 40 proteins persistently increased or decreased as the disease progressed to severe COVID‐19. These 40 potential biomarkers could effectively reflect the clinical progression of the disease. Our findings provide some new insights into host response to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, which are valuable for understanding of COVID‐19 disease progression. This study also identified potential biomarkers that could be further validated, which may support better predicting and monitoring progression to severe COVID‐19.

The rapid antigen test (RAT) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) represents a potent diagnostic method in situations of limited molecular testing resources. However, considerable performance variance has been reported with the RAT. We evaluated the clinical performance of Standard Q COVID-19 RAT (SQ-RAT; SD Biosensor, Suwon, Korea), the first RAT approved by the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. In total, 680 nasopharyngeal swabs previously tested using real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) were retested using SQ-RAT. The clinical sensitivity of SQ-RAT relative to that of rRT-PCR was 28.7% for all specimens and was 81.4% for specimens with RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (RdRp) threshold cycle (Ct) values ≤23.37, which is the limit of detection of SQ-RAT. The specificity was 100%. The clinical sensitivity of SQ-RAT for COVID-19 diagnosis was assessed based on the Ct distribution at diagnosis of 33,294 COVID-19 cases in Korea extracted from the laboratory surveillance system of Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine. The clinical sensitivity of SQ-RAT for COVID-19 diagnosis in the Korean population was 41.8%. Considering the molecular testing capacity in Korea, use of the RAT for COVID-19 diagnosis appears to be limited.

Background Positive results from real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) in recovered patients raise concern that patients who recover from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be at risk of reinfection. Currently, however, evidence that supports reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has not been reported. Methods We conducted whole-genome sequencing of the viral RNA from clinical specimens at the initial infection and at the positive retest from 6 patients who recovered from COVID-19 and retested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via rRT-PCR after recovery. A total of 13 viral RNAs from the patients’ respiratory specimens were consecutively obtained, which enabled us to characterize the difference in viral genomes between initial infection and positive retest. Results At the time of the positive retest, we were able to acquire a complete genome sequence from patient 1, a 21-year-old previously healthy woman. In this patient, through the phylogenetic analysis, we confirmed that the viral RNA of positive retest was clustered into a subgroup distinct from that of the initial infection, suggesting that there was a reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 with a subtype that was different from that of the primary strain. The spike protein D614G substitution that defines the clade “G” emerged in reinfection, while mutations that characterize the clade “V” (ie, nsp6 L37F and ORF3a G251V) were present at initial infection. Conclusions Reinfection with a genetically distinct SARS-CoV-2 strain may occur in an immunocompetent patient shortly after recovery from mild COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 infection may not confer immunity against a different SARS-CoV-2 strain., We conducted serial whole-genome sequencing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Our results highlight possible SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with a genetically distinct SARS-CoV-2 strain in patients shortly after recovery from mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Background Seroprevalence studies of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from many countries have shown that the number of undiagnosed missing cases is much larger than that of confirmed cases, irrespective of seroprevalence levels. Considering the strategy of Korea entailing massive testing and contact tracing from the beginning of epidemic, the number of undiagnosed missing cases in Korea may be negligible. This study was conducted to estimate the seroprevalence of COVID-19 among individuals who were never diagnosed with COVID-19 in Daegu, the epicenter of COVID-19 epidemic in Korea. Methods Serologic testing for immunoglobulin G antibody based on immunochromatographic assay was conducted in 103 patients and 95 guardians aged 18 to 82 years without any history of COVID-19 diagnosis, who visited outpatient clinics of a single university-affiliated hospital from May 25 to June 5, 2020. Results The estimated seroprevalence was 7.6% (95% confidence interval, 4.3%–12.2%) with 15 positive cases. Among them, only one had a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed case among their close contacts and 13 did not experience COVID-19-related symptoms. Seroprevalence was similar between patients and guardians. Based on this figure, the number of undiagnosed missing cases in Daegu was estimated to be a dozen times more than the number of confirmed cases based on PCR testing. Conclusion Despite the limitation of a small and unrepresentative sample, this is the first study on seroprevalence of COVID-19 in Korea. Our study suggested that the number of undiagnosed missing cases was substantial even with the stringent strategy adopted in Korea, similar to that of other countries., Graphical Abstract

External quality assessment (EQA) is essential for ensuring reliable test results, especially when laboratories are using assays authorized for emergency use for newly emerging pathogens. We developed an EQA panel to assess the quality of real-time reverse transcription PCR assays being used in South Korea to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). With the participation of 23 public health organization laboratories and 95 nongovernmental laboratories involved in SARS-CoV-2 testing, we conducted qualitative and semiquantitative performance assessments by using pooled respiratory samples containing different viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 or human coronavirus OC43. A total of 110 (93.2%) laboratories reported correct results for all qualitative tests; 29 (24.6%) laboratories had >1 outliers according to cycle threshold values. Our EQA panel identified the potential weaknesses of currently available commercial reagent kits. The methodology we used can provide practical experience for those planning to conduct evaluations for testing of SARS-CoV-2 and other emerging pathogens in the future.

We herein describe rapid and accurate clinical testing for COVID-19 by nicking and extension chain reaction system-based amplification (NESBA), an ultrasensitive version of NASBA. The primers to identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA were designed to additionally contain the nicking recognition sequence at the 5′-end of conventional NASBA primers, which would enable nicking enzyme-aided exponential amplification of T7 RNA promoter-containing double-stranded DNA (T7DNA). As a consequence of this substantially enhanced amplification power, the NESBA technique was able to ultrasensitively detect SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA (gRNA) down to 0.5 copies/μL (= 10 copies/reaction) for both envelope (E) and nucleocapsid (N) genes within 30 min under isothermal temperature (41 °C). When the NESBA was applied to test a large cohort of clinical samples (n = 98), the results fully agreed with those from qRT-PCR and showed the excellent accuracy by yielding 100% clinical sensitivity and specificity. By employing multiple molecular beacons with different fluorophore labels, the NESBA was further modulated to achieve multiplex molecular diagnostics, so that the E and N genes of SARS-CoV-2 gRNA were simultaneously assayed in one-pot. By offering the superior analytical performances over the current qRT-PCR, the isothermal NESBA technique could serve as very powerful platform technology to realize the point-of-care (POC) diagnosis for COVID-19.