Literature DB >> 35177559

Update of Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea.

Ki Ho Hong1, Gab Jung Kim2, Kyoung Ho Roh3, Heungsup Sung4, Jaehyeon Lee5, So Yeon Kim6, Taek Soo Kim7, Jae-Sun Park2, Hee Jae Huh8, Younhee Park1, Jae-Seok Kim9, Hyun Soo Kim9, Moon-Woo Seong7, Nam Hee Ryoo10, Sang Hoon Song7, Hyukmin Lee1, Gye Cheol Kwon11, Cheon Kwon Yoo2.   

Abstract

Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and the Korea Disease Prevention and Control Agency have announced guidelines for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in clinical laboratories in Korea. With the ongoing pandemic, we propose an update of the previous guidelines based on new scientific data. This update includes recommendations for tests that were not included in the previous guidelines, including the rapid molecular test, antigen test, antibody test, and self-collected specimens, and a revision of the previous recommendations. This update will aid clinical laboratories in performing laboratory tests for diagnosing COVID-19.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antibody; Antigen; COVID-19; Guidelines; Laboratory diagnosis; Nasal swab; Pooled test; Rapid molecular test; SARS-CoV-2; Saliva

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35177559      PMCID: PMC8859556          DOI: 10.3343/alm.2022.42.4.391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Lab Med        ISSN: 2234-3806            Impact factor:   4.941


INTRODUCTION

We propose an update of the Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in Korea issued by Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine (KSLM) and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) that elaborate on the tests recommended for diagnosing COVID-19 [1]. This update includes recommendations for the rapid molecular test, antigen test, antibody test, and self-collected respiratory specimens, which were not covered in the previous guidelines, and a revision of the previous recommendations based on new scientific data (Table 1).
Table 1

Types of COVID-19 laboratory tests in Korea

Type of testIntended useCaution
rRT-PCRConfirmatory diagnosis in acute symptomatic patients or screening of asymptomatic individualsNot suitable for quantitative interpretation. Infectivity cannot be determined on the basis of PCR results alone.
Pooled test using rRT-PCRScreening of asymptomatic individualsSensitivity may vary with the transport medium, nucleic acid extraction method, and PCR reagent used, and the pool size.
Rapid molecular testRapid screening under emergency situationsPositive results are recommended to be confirmed with a validated rRT-PCR.
Antigen testDiagnosis for symptomatic patients within seven days from symptom onsetThe false-negative rate is high in pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic patients. The false-positive rate is high when prevalence is low.
Antibody testConfirmation of past infection or multisystem inflammation syndrome or serosurveillanceAssays with high specificity should be used. Not recommended for evaluating the risk of infection.

Abbreviation: rRT-PCR, real-time reverse transcription PCR.

MOLECULAR TESTS

KSLM and KDCA recommend real-time reverse transcription (rRT)-PCR as a molecular test for diagnosing COVID-19. In addition to rRT-PCR, there are various isothermal amplification methods, including loop-mediated isothermal amplification and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats-based tests [2-7]. However, meta-analyses of these methods revealed insufficient performance or insufficient data; therefore, they should be used with caution in Korea at present [3-7].

Specimen types

Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs collected simultaneously and placed in the same transport medium are no longer recommended for routine use because of the high risk of droplet generation in the process of placing two swabs in the same transport medium and because the viral loads are similar between the two specimen types; nasopharyngeal swabs are sufficient [8]. The use of an inactivating agent-containing transport medium (e.g., a chaotropic agent) for molecular tests provides safer specimen handling [9, 10].

Self-collected respiratory specimens

KSLM and KDCA generally do not recommend using self-collected respiratory specimens for diagnosing asymptomatic patients. Studies have investigated diagnosing COVID-19 using self-collected respiratory specimens, such as saliva, anterior nasal swabs (ANS), and mouthwash, as alternatives to nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs [11-14]. The advantage of these specimens is that they are easily obtained. However, recent prospective studies have revealed that the test sensitivities for saliva and ANS in asymptomatic patients were significantly lower than those for nasopharyngeal swabs [15-19]. In addition, pooled tests using saliva or ANS have lower sensitivities than individual tests using saliva or ANS [20-23]. Therefore, collecting such specimens can be considered for patients who need repeated specimen collection or in whom nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to collect. However, the possibility of false negatives should be carefully considered in advance [24, 25]. The possibility of viral transmission during the process of self-collection should also be considered.

Test interpretation

KSLM and KDCA recommend using a molecular test that targets two or more sites of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genome and to consider a COVID-19 diagnostic test positive only when all targets are positive. If the initial test result is inconclusive in a patient with no history of confirmed COVID-19, collecting a new specimen for retesting is recommended. The following criteria apply only to the newly confirmed COVID-19 cases and in the course of treatment of a patient with confirmed COVID-19. The rRT-PCR test result can be judged positive even if the fluorescent signal reaches the threshold after the cut-off cycle because of a decrease in the viral load. - All genes positive: COVID-19-positive (SARS-CoV-2 detected) - All genes negative: COVID-19-negative (SARS-CoV-2 not detected) - Some genes positive as compared to the reference values: inconclusive

Considerations for test interpretation

Molecular tests that target a single site are not recommended for diagnosing COVID-19 as various mutations affecting test sensitivity have been reported [26-35]. Multiple targets can also discriminate non-specific reactions, background fluorescence signals, and cross-reactivity, which can cause false-positive results [36-38]. The targets do not necessarily have to be located in different genes. Some reagents target multiple sites but employ the same fluorescent dyes; in such cases, the manufacturer has to establish a method to differentiate between non-specific reaction and SARS-CoV-2 genome amplification for the user.

Solutions for inconclusive results

If the results are inconsistent after retesting, they can be judged false positive, and when the results are consistent, the results can be judged positive. If there is a possibility of cross-contamination, re-amplification of the extracted nucleic acids is not sufficient; the specimen must be re-extracted or a new specimen must be collected. The possibility of COVID-19 can be judged by reviewing the patient’s medical history. In some cases, an antibody test may help in interpreting inconsistent or inconclusive results. To determine the risk of cross-contamination, it is recommended to follow-up the laboratory’s positive-test rate or to consider the location of other SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens on the PCR plate [39].

Result reporting

KSLM and KDCA do not recommend routine reporting of threshold cycle (Ct) values [40-43]. All currently approved COVID-19 molecular tests are qualitative tests. Respiratory specimens are not homogeneous in quality and the amount collected, and there are differences between reagents used, leading to large fluctuations in Ct values. In external quality programs of COVID-19 molecular tests conducted in Korea and other countries, a very wide range of Ct values (10-27) has been observed [44-47]. Making clinical judgments, e.g., on quarantine release, based on Ct values has a high probability of error [42, 43, 48, 49]. Ct values should be interpreted cautiously in consultation with the laboratory director.

Pooled test using rRT-PCR

KSLM and KDCA recommend that test performance must be verified before using in the pooled specimen test method for the screening of asymptomatic patients [40, 50]. The pooled rRT-PCR test for COVID-19 uses pooled upper respiratory tract specimens for the screening of asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 [50-52]. If the pooled test result is positive, all specimens included in the pooled test are subjected to rRT-PCR individually for confirmation. This method cannot be used for confirming suspected COVID-19 and should be limited to the screening of asymptomatic patients. For suspected patients, rRT-PCR of individual specimens is recommended. As the pooled specimen test method is a screening test, sensitivity should be maintained as high as possible; the possibility of a decrease in sensitivity should be considered [52, 53]. Sensitivity may vary with the transport medium, nucleic acid extraction method, and PCR reagent used and the pool size [54, 55]. Therefore, it is necessary to verify whether the pooled specimen test method can be applied to the conditions used in each laboratory before testing. - For general matters and considerations, refer to the previous guidelines and the protocol of KSLM for the pooled specimen test method [50]. - Regarding the determination of the pool size, various factors should be considered, including the virus amount of the newly diagnosed patient, the nucleic acid extraction method used, and the performance of the PCR reagent. Generally, a pool of no more than five to six specimens is recommended. - Before starting a new test or changing the test method, a combination of the nucleic acid extraction method and PCR reagent should be tested with sufficient positive specimens to confirm that 100% sensitivity is obtained for the pooled test. In the verification process, sufficient specimens with high Ct values (e.g., at least 30% specimens with a Ct value ≥30) should be used. These recommendations are based on the distribution of the Ct values of newly diagnosed cases in Korea [50, 56].

RAPID MOLECULAR TEST

KSLM and KDCA recommend using reagents and equipment with verified performance when using a rapid molecular test [57]. The rapid molecular test for COVID-19 is used for the confirmation of a COVID-19 diagnosis within a short time [58]. The test principle is the same as that of other molecular tests, but the use of optimal reagents and equipment saves time; results can generally be obtained within one hour. Rapid molecular tests can provide accurate results under emergency situations. To this end, the entire process from specimen input to obtaining test results must be automated. Considering the performance of the currently available rapid molecular tests and the prevalence of COVID-19 in Korea, a rapid molecular test should be used only for screening, and positive specimens should be confirmed using a validated rRT-PCR test. A rapid molecular test is not recommended for the pooled specimen method, which requires maximum sensitivity. Rapid molecular tests that employ a general thermocycler and rRT-PCR reagent with a short reaction time are not suitable for emergency situations as not all processes are automated and the equipment is not suitable for detecting short-time reactions.

Test procedure

As most rapid molecular tests do not use positive and negative controls, an internal control must be included in the same reaction well as the specimen. Before using the rapid molecular test, it is recommended to verify its performance with sufficient positive specimens to confirm that 100% sensitivity is obtained for multiple pooled specimens. In the verification process, it is recommended to include sufficient specimens with high Ct values (e.g., at least 30% of specimens with a Ct value ≥30). These recommendations are based on the distribution of Ct values of newly reported cases in Korea [50, 56].

Interpretation

Even if only one of the target genes is present, it is considered presumptive positive, and a validated rRT-PCR test is recommended for confirmation. As rapid molecular tests are for screening, inconclusive results should be considered presumptive positive. The positive predictive value may be low when the prevalence is low as the specificity of the rapid molecular test is not sufficiently high. In such a case, both positive and inconclusive rapid molecular test results should be considered only as screening test results and the results should be confirmed using a conventional rRT-PCR test.

ANTIGEN TEST

KSLM and KDCA do not recommend using a SARS-CoV-2 antigen test for asymptomatic individuals. Considering the low sensitivity and specificity of the antigen tests and the relatively low prevalence of COVID-19 in Korea, SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have a very limited role in the screening of asymptomatic patients in Korea [56, 59-63]. The European Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that antigen tests should not be used for the screening of asymptomatic patients if the prevalence is <10% [60]. The sensitivity of antigen tests using self-collected specimens, such as saliva or ANS, is even lower [63-67]. The use of a SARS-CoV-2 antigen test may be considered for symptomatic patients within seven days from symptom onset (1) when the prevalence and positive predictive value are high, (2) when the molecular test results are delayed for more than 48 hrs, and (3) when effective prophylactic treatment can be administered on the basis of clinical suspicion even after suspected false-negative results with the antigen test. A molecular test is recommended simultaneously with the antigen test to reduce the possibility of false positives or false negatives [68]. The manufacturer’s instructions for immunochromatography must be followed strictly as result interpretation may be subjective [69].

ANTIBODY TEST

KSLM and KDCA do not recommend using an antibody test for diagnosing acute COVID-19 or for evaluating the risk of infection for individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 or who have been vaccinated for COVID-19 [40, 70-73]. SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are indicated (1) for serosurveillance studies, (2) in the case of strong suspicion of past SARS-CoV-2 infection based on epidemiological and clinical results and repeated negative or indeterminate molecular tests, (3) in the case of suspected COVID-19-related multisystem inflammatory syndrome, (4) for the selection of convalescent plasma donors from patients who have recovered from COVID-19 for therapeutic purposes, (5) for studies aimed at investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of a vaccine, and (6) for entry into a country where a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test result is a prerequisite [74]. An antibody test with very high specificity (e.g., ≥99.5%) should be used [75-77]. To diagnose a breakthrough infection in a vaccinated patient, an antibody test detecting antigens not targeted by the vaccine received should be used.

LABORATORY GUIDELINES FOR BIOSAFETY AND INFECTION CONTROL

KSLM and KDCA recommend that only fully COVID-19-vaccinated healthcare personnel perform the tests [78-82].
  72 in total

1.  DNA Cross-Reactivity of the CDC-Specified SARS-CoV-2 Specimen Control Leads to Potential for False Negatives and Underreporting of Viral Infection.

Authors:  Adam P Rosebrock
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2021-01-30       Impact factor: 8.327

2.  A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Upper Airway Swab Collection for Detection of Viral and Bacterial Pathogens by Individuals or Caregivers Compared to Health Care Workers.

Authors:  Ciara Harrison; Daniel E Lindholm; Andrew C Steer; Joshua Osowicki
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Reverse Transcriptase Loop Mediated Isothermal AmplifiCation (RT-LAMP) for COVID-19 diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anita Dominique Subali; Lowilius Wiyono
Journal:  Pathog Glob Health       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 4.  How to interpret and use COVID-19 serology and immunology tests.

Authors:  David S Y Ong; Paraskevi C Fragkou; Valentijn A Schweitzer; Roy F Chemaly; Charalampos D Moschopoulos; Chrysanthi Skevaki
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2021-05-08       Impact factor: 8.067

5.  Evaluation of Chemical Protocols for Inactivating SARS-CoV-2 Infectious Samples.

Authors:  Boris Pastorino; Franck Touret; Magali Gilles; Lea Luciani; Xavier de Lamballerie; Remi N Charrel
Journal:  Viruses       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 5.048

6.  SARS-CoV-2 detection in different respiratory sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Abbas Mohammadi; Elmira Esmaeilzadeh; Yijia Li; Ronald J Bosch; Jonathan Z Li
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 8.143

7.  Nationwide External Quality Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing, South Korea.

Authors:  Heungsup Sung; Myung-Guk Han; Cheon-Kwon Yoo; Sang-Won Lee; Yoon-Seok Chung; Jae-Sun Park; Mi-Na Kim; Hyukmin Lee; Ki Ho Hong; Moon-Woo Seong; Kyunghoon Lee; Sail Chun; Wee Gyo Lee; Gye-Cheol Kwon; Won-Ki Min
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 6.883

8.  Tracking SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 dissemination: insights from nationwide spike gene target failure (SGTF) and spike gene late detection (SGTL) data, Portugal, week 49 2020 to week 3 2021.

Authors:  Vítor Borges; Carlos Sousa; Luís Menezes; António Maia Gonçalves; Miguel Picão; José Pedro Almeida; Margarida Vieita; Rafael Santos; Ana Rita Silva; Mariana Costa; Luís Carneiro; Pedro Casaca; Pedro Pinto-Leite; André Peralta-Santos; Joana Isidro; Sílvia Duarte; Luís Vieira; Raquel Guiomar; Susana Silva; Baltazar Nunes; João P Gomes
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2021-03

Review 9.  Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Korea.

Authors:  Ki Ho Hong; Sang Won Lee; Taek Soo Kim; Hee Jae Huh; Jaehyeon Lee; So Yeon Kim; Jae Sun Park; Gab Jeong Kim; Heungsup Sung; Kyoung Ho Roh; Jae Seok Kim; Hyun Soo Kim; Seung Tae Lee; Moon Woo Seong; Namhee Ryoo; Hyukmin Lee; Kye Chul Kwon; Cheon Kwon Yoo
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 3.464

View more
  1 in total

1.  Guidelines for Mobile Laboratories for Molecular Diagnostic Testing of COVID-19.

Authors:  Kyoung Ho Roh; Ki Ho Hong; Myung-Hyun Nam; Taek Soo Kim; Moon-Woo Seong; Jin Kyung Lee; Sookyoung Bae; Hee Jae Huh; Jeong-Yeal Ahn; Jinsook Lim; Gab Jung Kim; Jae Sun Park; Hyun Yeong Kim; Cheon Kwon Yoo; Hyukmin Lee
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 4.941

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.