At the time of this writing (late March 2020), the pandemic of novel coronavirus disease
(COVID-19) is rapidly expanding across much of the world, as it wanes in parts of Asia.
Public health authorities and healthcare workers are struggling to appropriately manage
potentially infectious individuals to limit transmission to others and to appropriately
care for those ill with proven or suspected COVID-19. Approaches have varied from country
to country, with varied success in controlling local epidemics. Many lessons are being
learned. One lesson is the value of readily available and prompt diagnostic testing for the
virus.The COVID-19 pandemic emerged in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December
2019. In late December, evaluation of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from an ill patient
identified a betacoronavirus, and the virus, named severe acute respiratory syndrome
coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), was sequenced by early January 2020, enabling rapid development
of molecular testing.[1] Standard testing
for acute infection entails reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)
amplification of reverse-transcribed viral RNA from respiratory specimens, most commonly
nasopharyngeal swabs, but also oropharyngeal swabs, sputum, and bronchoalveolar lavage
fluid.[2] Antigen-based and
serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection are under study. Antigen-based tests may
suffer from limited sensitivity, as seen for related viruses.[2] Serological testing, once standardized, will be valuable for
epidemiological studies evaluating the extent of the pandemic, but may be limited for acute
diagnosis.Two critical features of a successful response to a pandemic respiratory virus are early
detection and isolation of potentially infectious individuals. In China, where the pandemic
began, initial delays in action contributed to the rapid growth of the epidemic, but
acknowledgment of the outbreak in late December 2019 was followed by development of a
molecular test for the infection within about 2 weeks. The rapid development of a reliable
diagnostic was of great value. Availability of diagnostics was initially limited, but the
establishment of extreme isolation for Hubei Province likely played a major role in
allowing the Chinese epidemic, although very large, to be controlled over some weeks.
Epidemic responses were different in other countries in Asia, including South Korea,
Singapore, and Taiwan. In these countries, the early response was marked by wide access to
molecular testing, benefitting from the earlier advances in China. Widespread testing of
those with suggestive symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection or contact with a patient, followed
by aggressive contact tracing, allowed for isolation of those infected and quarantine of
contacts. In these countries, COVID-19 outbreaks were controlled reasonably quickly, with
relatively few deaths compared to some other countries with similar numbers of reported
infections.Around the world, COVID-19 responses have varied greatly. In particular, widespread viral
testing has been much more available in some countries than others. In the United States,
to date, tests have been in limited supply, with testing prioritized to hospitalized
patients with respiratory disease, symptomatic healthcare workers, and contacts of known
cases of COVID-19.In a case report published in this issue of the Journal, a 56-year-old
woman who traveled from the epicenter of the pandemic in Wuhan, China, to Thailand in late
January 2020 presented 8 days after her husband was diagnosed with COVID-19 without
symptoms but with concern for infection.[3]
She had been tested 4 days earlier by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 of nasopharyngeal and throat
swabs, and results were negative. On the day of admission, she denied symptoms and was
afebrile with normal oxygenation, but coughing was noted during examination. Chest X-ray
showed an alveolar opacity suggestive of COVID-19, and the patient was admitted, with
respiratory isolation. Repeat RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 of sputum on the day of
admission was deemed inconclusive. The patient reported sore throat, mild cough, and
diarrhea 2 days after admission. A third RT-PCR test, of sputum, 3 days after admission,
was positive for SARS-CoV-2. The patient’s symptoms and chest X-ray infiltrates
worsened, and chest computed tomography and ultrasound were abnormal, but findings
subsequently improved, and the patient was discharged after two negative SARS-CoV-2
tests.The case report from Thailand demonstrated prompt and appropriate management of a patient
with exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and then diagnosis facilitated by repeat RT-PCR testing and
lung imaging. This diagnosis facilitated appropriate management through the course of
SARS-CoV-2 infection. Early isolation is important, as COVID-19 may be highly infectious in
asymptomatic individuals or before symptoms are apparent.[4,5] Notably, this
diagnosis would likely have been missed in the United States, where, to date, clinicians
struggle to provide diagnostic tests. The Thai patient would have fit some current criteria
for testing in the United States, as she was a contact of a patient with documented
infection, but U.S. guidelines do not include repeat testing in the event of initial
negative tests. This is unfortunate, as it appears that COVID-19patients commonly have
negative tests early in the course of illness, at times with abnormal chest imaging, as in
the described case report and in a report from China,[6] but the limited supply of tests necessitates restrictive testing
algorithms that do not incorporate repeat testing. By contrast, the patient described in
the case report received appropriate isolation and then appropriate discontinuation of
isolation, based on a total of 5 RT-PCR tests.Moving forward, as we work to control the COVID-19 pandemic and as we plan for future
pandemics, a key lesson is that early availability of diagnostic testing is of great value
for patient management and public health. Thus, the development, validation, scale-up in
manufacture, and distribution of diagnostic tests should be of highest priority in early
preparation during an emerging infectious disease outbreak.
Authors: Camilla Rothe; Mirjam Schunk; Peter Sothmann; Gisela Bretzel; Guenter Froeschl; Claudia Wallrauch; Thorbjörn Zimmer; Verena Thiel; Christian Janke; Wolfgang Guggemos; Michael Seilmaier; Christian Drosten; Patrick Vollmar; Katrin Zwirglmaier; Sabine Zange; Roman Wölfel; Michael Hoelscher Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aníbal A Teherán; Gabriel Camero Ramos; Ronald Prado de la Guardia; Carolina Hernández; Giovanny Herrera; Luis M Pombo; Albert Alejandro Avila; Carolina Flórez; Esther C Barros; Luis Perez-Garcia; Alberto Paniz-Mondolfi; Juan David Ramírez Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Brian J Boyarsky; Teresa Po-Yu Chiang; William A Werbel; Christine M Durand; Robin K Avery; Samantha N Getsin; Kyle R Jackson; Amber B Kernodle; Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Allan B Massie; Dorry L Segev; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-05-10 Impact factor: 9.369
Authors: Ronald A Navarro; Nithin C Reddy; Jennifer M Weiss; Adolph J Yates; Freddie H Fu; Michael McKee; Evan S Lederman Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 6.558