The recent outbreak of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has quickly spread worldwide since its discovery in Wuhan city, China in December 2019. A comprehensive strategy, including surveillance, diagnostics, research, clinical treatment, and development of vaccines, is urgently needed to win the battle against COVID-19. The past three unprecedented outbreaks of emerging human coronavirus infections at the beginning of the 21st century have highlighted the importance of readily available, accurate, and rapid diagnostic technologies to contain emerging and re-emerging pandemics. Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) based assays performed on respiratory specimens remain the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnostics. However, point-of-care technologies and serologic immunoassays are rapidly emerging with high sensitivity and specificity as well. Even though excellent techniques are available for the diagnosis of symptomatic patients with COVID-19 in well-equipped laboratories; critical gaps still remain in screening asymptomatic people who are in the incubation phase of the virus, as well as in the accurate determination of live viral shedding during convalescence to inform decisions for ending isolation. This review article aims to discuss the currently available laboratory methods and surveillance technologies available for the detection of COVID-19, their performance characteristics and highlight the gaps in current diagnostic capacity, and finally, propose potential solutions. We also summarize the specifications of the majority of the available commercial kits (PCR, EIA, and POC) for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19.

To support the deployment of serology assays for population screening during the COVID-19 pandemic, we compared the performance of three fully automated SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays: Mindray CL-900i® (target: spike [S] and nucleocapsid [N]), BioMérieux VIDAS®3 (target: receptor-binding domain [RBD]) and Diasorin LIAISON®XL (target: S1 and S2 subunits). A total of 111 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR- positive samples collected at ≥ 21 days post symptom onset, and 127 pre-pandemic control samples were included. Diagnostic performance was assessed in correlation to RT-PCR and a surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT). Moreover, cross-reactivity with other viral antibodies was investigated. Compared to RT-PCR, LIAISON®XL showed the highest overall specificity (100%), followed by VIDAS®3 (98.4%) and CL-900i® (95.3%). The highest sensitivity was demonstrated by CL-900i® (90.1%), followed by VIDAS®3 (88.3%) and LIAISON®XL (85.6%). The sensitivity of all assays was higher in symptomatic patients (91.1–98.2%) compared to asymptomatic patients (78.4–80.4%). In correlation to sVNT, all assays showed excellent sensitivities (92.2–96.1%). In addition, VIDAS®3 demonstrated the best correlation (r = 0.75) with the sVNT. The present study provides insights on the performance of three fully automated assays, which could help diagnostic laboratories in the choice of a particular assay according to the intended use.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a pandemic as of March 2020, creating a global crisis and claiming millions of lives. To halt the pandemic and alleviate its impact on society, economy, and public health, the development of vaccines and antiviral agents against SARS-CoV-2 was a dire need. To date, various platforms have been utilized for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development, and over 200 vaccine candidates have been produced, many of which have obtained the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for emergency use. Despite this successful development and licensure, concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of these vaccines have arisen, given the unprecedented speed of vaccine development and the newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 strains and variants. In this review, we summarize the different platforms used for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine development, discuss their strengths and limitations, and highlight the major safety concerns and potential risks associated with each vaccine type.

Highlights Performances of five commercial ELISA (EDI, AnshLabs, Dia.Pro, NovaTec, and Lionex) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was evaluated. Samples used in this study are from diverse national background and the negative group contains samples that are seropositive for all other HCoV. All assays showed low sensitivity during the early stages (≤7 from symptom onset); however, it was greatly improved overtime. Lionex showed the highest specificity (98.6%), followed by EDI and Dia.Pro (97.1%,), NovaTec (85.7%), and AnshLabs (75.7%). Lionex, which measures antibodies to the S1 protein, demonstrated the best performance and doesn’t cross-react with any other HCoV.

This study aims to study the immune response and evaluate the performances of four new IgM and five IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits for detecting anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies against different antigens in symptomatic and asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. A total of 291 samples collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic RT–PCR-confirmed patients were used to evaluate the ELISA kits’ performance (EDI, AnshLabs, DiaPro, NovaLisa, and Lionex). The sensitivity was measured at three different time-intervals post symptoms onset or positive SARS-CoV-2 RT–PCR test (≤14, 14–30, >30 days). The specificity was investigated using 119 pre-pandemic serum samples. The sensitivity of all IgM kits gradually decreased with time, ranging from 48.7% (EDI)–66.4% (Lionex) at ≤14 days, 29.1% (NovaLisa)–61.8% (Lionex) at 14–30 days, and 6.0% (AnshLabs)–47.9% (Lionex) at >30 days. The sensitivity of IgG kits increased with time, peaking in the latest interval (>30 days) at 96.6% (Lionex). Specificity of IgM ranged from 88.2% (Lionex)–99.2% (EDI), while IgG ranged from 75.6% (DiaPro)–98.3% (Lionex). Among all RT–PCR-positive patients, 23 samples (7.9%) were seronegative by all IgG kits, of which only seven samples (30.4%) had detectable IgM antibodies. IgM assays have variable and low sensitivity, thus considered a poor marker for COVID-19 diagnosis. IgG assays can miss at least 8% of RT–PCR-positive cases.