Zeina Habli1, Sahera Saleh1, Hassan Zaraket2,3, Massoud L Khraiche1. 1. Neural Engineering and Nanobiosensors Group, Biomedical Engineering Program, Maroun Semaan Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. 2. Department of Experimental Pathology, Immunology and Microbiology, Faculty for Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. 3. Center for Infectious Diseases Research, Faculty of Medicine, Beirut, Lebanon.
Abstract
The world continues to grapple with the devastating effects of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The highly contagious nature of this respiratory disease challenges advanced viral diagnostic technologies for rapid, scalable, affordable, and high accuracy testing. Molecular assays have been the gold standard for direct detection of the presence of the viral RNA in suspected individuals, while immunoassays have been used in the surveillance of individuals by detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Unlike molecular testing, immunoassays are indirect testing of the viral infection. More than 140 diagnostic assays have been developed as of this date and have received the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA). Given the differences in assasy format and/or design as well as the lack of rigorous verification studies, the performance and accuracy of these testing modalities remain unclear. In this review, we aim to carefully examine commercialized and FDA approved molecular-based and serology-based diagnostic assays, analyze their performance characteristics and shed the light on their utility and limitations in dealing with the COVID-19 global public health crisis.
The world continues to grapple with the devastating effects of the current COVID-19 paene">nden class="Gene">mic. The highly contagious nature of this respiratory disease challenges advanced viral diagnostic technologies for rapid, scalable, affordable, and high accuracy testing. Molecular assays have been the gold standard for direct detection of the presence of the viral RNA in suspected individuals, while immunoassays have been used in the surveillance of individuals by detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Unlike molecular testing, immunoassays are indirect testing of the viral infection. More than 140 diagnostic assays have been developed as of this date and have received the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA). Given the differences in assasy format and/or design as well as the lack of rigorous verification studies, the performance and accuracy of these testing modalities remain unclear. In this review, we aim to carefully examine commercialized and FDA approved molecular-based and serology-based diagnostic assays, analyze their performance characteristics and shed the light on their utility and limitations in dealing with the COVID-19 global public health crisis.
Authors: Roman Wölfel; Victor M Corman; Wolfgang Guggemos; Michael Seilmaier; Sabine Zange; Marcel A Müller; Daniela Niemeyer; Terry C Jones; Patrick Vollmar; Camilla Rothe; Michael Hoelscher; Tobias Bleicker; Sebastian Brünink; Julia Schneider; Rosina Ehmann; Katrin Zwirglmaier; Christian Drosten; Clemens Wendtner Journal: Nature Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Bernard La Scola; Marion Le Bideau; Julien Andreani; Van Thuan Hoang; Clio Grimaldier; Philippe Colson; Philippe Gautret; Didier Raoult Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Maniya Arshadi; Fatemeh Fardsanei; Behnaz Deihim; Zahra Farshadzadeh; Farhad Nikkhahi; Farima Khalili; Giovanni Sotgiu; Amir Hashem Shahidi Bonjar; Rosella Centis; Giovanni Battista Migliori; Mohammad Javad Nasiri; Mehdi Mirsaeidi Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-04-07