Diagnostic strategies for SARS-CoV-2 infection and interpretation of microbiological results.
COVID-19
Coronavirus
Molecular diagnostic testing
Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction
SARS-COV-2
Serology
Journal
Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
ISSN: 1469-0691
Titre abrégé: Clin Microbiol Infect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9516420
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
17
04
2020
revised:
15
06
2020
accepted:
20
06
2020
pubmed:
1
7
2020
medline:
23
12
2020
entrez:
29
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To face the current COVID-19 pandemic, diagnostic tools are essential. It is recommended to use real-time RT-PCR for RNA viruses in order (a) to perform a rapid and accurate diagnostic, (b) to guide patient care and management and (c) to guide epidemiological strategies. Further studies are warranted to define the role of serological diagnosis and a possible correlation between serological response and prognosis. The aim was to guide clinical microbiologists in the use of these diagnostic tests and clinicians in the interpretation of their results. A search of literature was performed through PubMed and Google Scholar using the keywords SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnosis, SARS-CoV-2 immune response, SARS-CoV-2 serology/antibody testing, coronavirus diagnosis. The present review discusses performances, limitations and use of current and future diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2. Real-time RT-PCR remains the reference method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. On the other hand, notwithstanding its varying sensitivity according to the time of infection, serology represents a valid asset (a) to try to solve possible discrepancies between a highly suggestive clinical and radiological presentation and negative RT-PCR, (b) to solve discrepancies between different PCR assays and (c) for epidemiological purposes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To face the current COVID-19 pandemic, diagnostic tools are essential. It is recommended to use real-time RT-PCR for RNA viruses in order (a) to perform a rapid and accurate diagnostic, (b) to guide patient care and management and (c) to guide epidemiological strategies. Further studies are warranted to define the role of serological diagnosis and a possible correlation between serological response and prognosis.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to guide clinical microbiologists in the use of these diagnostic tests and clinicians in the interpretation of their results.
SOURCES
METHODS
A search of literature was performed through PubMed and Google Scholar using the keywords SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnosis, SARS-CoV-2 immune response, SARS-CoV-2 serology/antibody testing, coronavirus diagnosis.
CONTENT
BACKGROUND
The present review discusses performances, limitations and use of current and future diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2.
IMPLICATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Real-time RT-PCR remains the reference method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. On the other hand, notwithstanding its varying sensitivity according to the time of infection, serology represents a valid asset (a) to try to solve possible discrepancies between a highly suggestive clinical and radiological presentation and negative RT-PCR, (b) to solve discrepancies between different PCR assays and (c) for epidemiological purposes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32593741
pii: S1198-743X(20)30363-3
doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.06.019
pmc: PMC7315992
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1178-1182Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Arch Gesamte Virusforsch. 1970;31(3):352-64
pubmed: 4321451
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):470-473
pubmed: 31986257
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
Euro Surveill. 2020 May;25(21):
pubmed: 32489175
Lab Chip. 2010 Oct 21;10(20):2764-70
pubmed: 20820486
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Mar 28;103(13):5108-13
pubmed: 16549795
Lancet. 2020 Feb 29;395(10225):689-697
pubmed: 32014114
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-1179
pubmed: 32074444
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jul 31;349(5):508-9
pubmed: 12890855
Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Dec;21(12):2186-9
pubmed: 26583829
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2027-2034
pubmed: 32221519
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):382-385
pubmed: 32065055
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):270-273
pubmed: 32015507
Future Microbiol. 2016;11(3):403-25
pubmed: 27028061
N Engl J Med. 2012 Nov 8;367(19):1814-20
pubmed: 23075143
J Med Virol. 2020 Jun;92(6):680-682
pubmed: 32124995
Nat Med. 2020 Jun;26(6):845-848
pubmed: 32350462
Essays Biochem. 2016 Jun 30;60(1):111-20
pubmed: 27365041
N Engl J Med. 2003 May 15;348(20):1967-76
pubmed: 12690091
Virus Res. 2014 Dec 19;194:175-83
pubmed: 24670324
Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar;56(1):61-79
pubmed: 1579113
Lab Chip. 2015 Feb 21;15(4):1059-65
pubmed: 25519439
J Appl Lab Med. 2020 Sep 1;5(5):908-920
pubmed: 32428207
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Apr 23;58(5):
pubmed: 32132196
Front Immunol. 2018 Nov 16;9:2640
pubmed: 30505304
Gastroenterology. 2020 May;158(6):1518-1519
pubmed: 32142785
Mucosal Immunol. 2017 Mar;10(2):299-306
pubmed: 27966551
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):262-267
pubmed: 32422057
Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2009 Oct;234(10):1117-27
pubmed: 19546349
J Clin Med. 2020 Feb 26;9(3):
pubmed: 32110875
Cell Mol Immunol. 2020 May;17(5):536-538
pubmed: 32132669
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E32-E40
pubmed: 32101510
Lab Chip. 2007 Jul;7(7):868-75
pubmed: 17594006
J Appl Microbiol. 2012 Nov;113(5):1014-26
pubmed: 22747964