Serological testing for the detection of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is emerging as an important component of the clinical management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as well as the epidemiological assessment of SARS-CoV-2 exposure worldwide. In addition to molecular testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinical laboratories have also needed to increase testing capacity to include serological evaluation of patients with suspected or known COVID-19. While regulatory approved serological immunoassays are now widely available from diagnostic manufacturers globally, there is significant debate regarding the clinical utility of these tests, as well as their clinical and analytical performance requirements prior to application. This document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 provides interim guidance on: (A) clinical indications and target populations, (B) assay selection, (C) assay evaluation, and (D) test interpretation and limitations for serological testing of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection. These evidence-based recommendations will provide practical guidance to clinical laboratories in the selection, verification, and implementation of serological assays and are of the utmost importance as we expand our pandemic response from initial case tracing and containment to mitigation strategies to minimize resurgence and further morbidity and mortality.

The diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection globally has relied extensively on molecular testing, contributing vitally to case identification, isolation, contact tracing, and rationalization of infection control measures during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Clinical laboratories have thus needed to verify newly developed molecular tests and increase testing capacity at an unprecedented rate. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a global health threat, laboratories continue to encounter challenges in the selection, verification, and interpretation of these tests. This document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 provides interim guidance on: (A) clinical indications and target populations, (B) assay selection, (C) assay verification, and (D) test interpretation and limitations for molecular testing of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These evidence-based recommendations will provide practical guidance to clinical laboratories worldwide and highlight the continued importance of laboratory medicine in our collective pandemic response.

Routine biochemical and hematological tests have been reported to be useful in the stratification and prognostication of pediatric and adult patients with diagnosed coronavirus disease (COVID-19), correlating with poor outcomes such as the need for mechanical ventilation or intensive care, progression to multisystem organ failure, and/or death. While these tests are already well established in most clinical laboratories, there is still debate regarding their clinical value in the management of COVID-19, particularly in pediatrics, as well as the value of composite clinical risk scores in COVID-19 prognostication. This document by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 provides interim guidance on: (A) clinical indications for testing, (B) recommendations for test selection and interpretation, (C) considerations in test interpretation, and (D) current limitations of biochemical/hematological monitoring of COVID-19 patients. These evidence-based recommendations will provide practical guidance to clinical laboratories worldwide, underscoring the contribution of biochemical and hematological testing to our collective pandemic response.

No abstract

A diagnostic test for feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) infection based on a nested PCR (nPCR) assay was developed and tested with FIPV, feline enteric coronavirus (FECV), canine coronavirus (CCV), and transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) and clinical fluid samples from cats with effusive feline infectious peritonitis (FIP). The target sequence for the assay is in the S1 region of the peplomer protein E2 gene. A vaccine strain of FIPV and two wild-type FIPV strains tested positive, but FECV, TGEV, and CCV tested negative. Preliminary tests with 12 cats with clinical evidence of effusive FIP and 11 cats with an illness associated with effusions, but attributed to other causes, were performed. Eleven of the 12 cats with effusive FIP tested positive, while 1 was negative. Ten of the 11 cats ill from other causes tested negative, while 1 was positive. On the basis of clinical laboratory and histopathologic criteria, the preliminary sensitivity and specificity of the assay were 91.6 and 94%, respectively.

Malaria is a common, life-threatening infection in endemic tropical areas and one that presents a diagnostic challenge to laboratories in most non-endemic countries. A rapid and accurate diagnosis is a prerequisite for effective treatment, especially for the potentially fatal cases of Plasmodium falciparum infection. In the present, multi-centre study, the performances of a rapid diagnostic test (NOW) Malaria) and several, commercial, PCR-based assays (AMS61, AMS42, AMS43, AMS4 and AMS45) were compared against the results of microscopical examination of bloodsmears (the current 'gold standard'). The subjects were either non-European immigrants (N=135) or international travellers (N=171). There was good concordance between the results of all the detection methods, with kappa values of >0.8. Although the NOW Malaria rapid test was both sensitive (100%) and specific (100%) in detecting P. falciparum infections, it was less specific (93.1%) and sensitive (90.7%) in identifying the other Plasmodium species. The results from the AMS61 assay, designed to detect any malarial infection, generally parallelled those of the microscopy (kappa = 0.89), giving a specificity of 98.2% and a sensitivity of 91.0%. Although the use of species-specific molecular primers to identify pure infections with P. falciparum and P. vivax gave results that were in good agreement with those of the microscopy, the subjects who had apparently pure infections with P. ovale or P. malariae were always found PCR-negative. Compared with the standard microscopy, both the NOW Malaria test and the PCR-based assays were therefore poor at identifying mixed infections. The NOW Malaria test and the PCR-based assays clearly need to be improved, particularly for the correct identification of infections with Plasmodium spp. other than P. falciparum, including mixed infections. For now, expert microscopy must remain the mainstay of the laboratory diagnosis of malaria.

In the present study, 67 patients suspected to be cases of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) were each checked for leishmanial infection by the microscopical evaluation of various biological specimens, in-vitro culture, serology and an assay based on nested PCR. Most (35) of the subjects were immunocompetent (IC) but 32 were immunodeficient (ID) as the result of HIV infection (18 cases), treatment to prevent transplanted organs being rejected (six) or haematological malignancies (eight). Forty-one (61.2%) of the subjects (19 IC subjects, 12 HIV-positive patients, four transplant patients and six patients with malignancies) were considered true cases of VL. For the IC subjects, only the production and microscopical examination of leucocytoconcentrates and cultures of Buffy coats gave sensitivities of <80%, the results of the other methods showing higher sensitivities and almost perfect agreement with the 'gold-standard' diagnoses. For the ID subjects, however, only the serological tests and the PCR gave reasonable sensitivities (of >80%). For the initial diagnosis of leishmaniasis in ID patients, IFAT and western blots may be useful, as, among the present ID patients, they gave sensitivities (of 80.9% and 88.2%, respectively) that were almost as high as that for the PCR, and specificities of 100%. In the diagnosis of VL in either IC or ID patients, the assay based on a nested PCR appeared to be particularly reliable, with sensitivities of 88.9% and 95.2%, respectively, and a specificity of 100% in both groups of patients. The testing of bone-marrow aspirates by PCR revealed very few VL cases who were not found positive when samples of their peripheral blood were checked in the same assay. For both IC and ID subjects therefore, the use of the PCR-based method to test samples of peripheral blood (which can be collected much more easily than bone-marrow aspirates and with much less pain for the subject) is recommended.

With an almost unremittent progression of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections all around the world, there is a compelling need to introduce rapid, reliable, and high-throughput testing to allow appropriate clinical management and/or timely isolation of infected individuals. Although nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) remains the gold standard for detecting and theoretically quantifying SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in various specimen types, antigen assays may be considered a suitable alternative, under specific circumstances. Rapid antigen tests are meant to detect viral antigen proteins in biological specimens (e.g. nasal, nasopharyngeal, saliva), to indicate current SARS-CoV-2 infection. The available assay methodology includes rapid chromatographic immunoassays, used at the point-of-care, which carries some advantages and drawbacks compared to more conventional, instrumentation-based, laboratory immunoassays. Therefore, this document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 aims to summarize available data on the performance of currently available SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests (Ag-RDTs), providing interim guidance on clinical indications and target populations, assay selection, and evaluation, test interpretation and limitations, as well as on pre-analytical considerations. This document is hence mainly aimed to assist laboratory and regulated health professionals in selecting, validating, and implementing regulatory approved Ag-RDTs.