• Users Online: 130
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
INVITED COMMENTARY
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 53-54

Diagnostic tests for COVID-19


Department of Pediatric, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Gadjah Mada/Dr. Sardjito Hospital, Jl. Kesehatan 1 Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Date of Submission16-Jul-2021
Date of Decision31-May-2022
Date of Acceptance18-Jul-2021
Date of Web Publication01-Aug-2022

Correspondence Address:
Rina Triasih
Department of Pediatric, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Gadjah Mada/ Dr. Sardjito Hospital, Jl. Kesehatan 1 Yogyakarta
Indonesia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/prcm.prcm_16_21

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Triasih R. Diagnostic tests for COVID-19. Pediatr Respirol Crit Care Med 2021;5:53-4

How to cite this URL:
Triasih R. Diagnostic tests for COVID-19. Pediatr Respirol Crit Care Med [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 10];5:53-4. Available from: https://www.prccm.org/text.asp?2021/5/3/53/353121



In general, the diagnosis of COVID-19 in children is the same as that in adults, which is based on the clinical and epidemiological history of the patient. Clinicians should have a suspicion of COVID-19 when a child shows one or more clinical manifestations of COVID-19 and, within 14 days before the onset of the disease, had at least one of the risks of COVID-19, that is, living or history of traveling in areas with the local transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or history of close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19. The diagnosis is supported by a chest X-ray or CT scan, and diagnostic tests to identify the virus or immune response to the virus. Because of the high morbidity and transmission rates of COVID-19, accurate and timely diagnostic tests are important to control the outbreak of the disease and to help the clinician in deciding on diagnosis and management. Currently, the diagnostic tests for COVID-19 mainly consist of molecular tests to identify the RNA of the virus and serological tests that detect the immunoglobulins against SARS-CoV-2.


  Real-time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction Top


The gold standard of COVID-19 is the detection of the virus, SARS-CoV-2, on a variety of specimens, including naso/oropharyngeal swabs, sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, bronchoscope brush biopsies, or feces through nucleic acids amplification test using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR).[1] This test can detect the RNA at the early stage of infection when the viral load is low and antibodies have not been formed, as shown in [Figure 1].[2]
Figure 1: Viral load and the clinical course during SARS-CoV-2 infection (taken from reference[2])

Click here to view


If done properly, the diagnostic values of rRT-PCR are good. The high specificity of rRT-PCR indicates a low probability of false-positive. Nevertheless, the false-negative of this test was reported as high as 41%.[3],[4],[5] Several studies have identified that the false-negative can occur if the amount of virus in the specimen is too low to be amplified and detected, which relates to sampling operation, specimen source, sampling timing (before or after symptoms onset), and the performance of detection kit.[2] A study from China reported that within 14 days of the onset of the disease, sputum samples had the highest yield of the virus (85% and 78%), followed by nasal swabs (73% and 63%) in severe and mild cases, respectively.[6] Further studies are needed to determine the most appropriate specimens and timing for peak viral load during SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In a clinical setting, the decision to treat or not to treat a patient as COVID-19 should not rely on the result of rRT-PCR only because a negative result does not completely rule out the possibility of COVID-19.[7] Re-testing should be considered in a patient with high suspicion of COVID-19.


  Serological Tests Top


Serological tests for COVID-19 measure antibodies in the blood when the body is infected with SARS-CoV-2. There are two assay methods of serological tests available: automated tests (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays [ELISA] or chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassays [CLIA]) and rapid detection test (lateral flow immunoassays [LFIA]).

The antibodies remain in the blood for several weeks to months after symptom onset; therefore, the test can identify recent or previous exposure to the virus, depending on the type of the immunoglobulin detected. IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are detectable in the blood a few days after initial infection, but the presence of IgM throughout infection has not been well characterized. IgG is detectable as early as three days from the onset of the symptom or 7–10 days after the initial infection.[8]

Although the serology tests are easier, faster, and cheaper to perform at the point of care than rRT-PCR, the diagnostic accuracies of these tests are also problematic. A recent systematic review of 40 studies documented that the pooled sensitivity of ELISA for IgG and IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval: 75.6%–90.9%), of LFIA was 66.0% (49.3%–79.3%), and of CLIA was 97.8% (46.2%–100%).[9] The pooled specificity ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. This test will falsely identify 44% to 87% of persons as not having COVID-19 when the test was done within one week of symptom onset. In the later stage of the disease, the false-negative of IgG serology tests was also of concern. These results imply that the utility of the serological test in clinical decision-making, both establishing the diagnosis and initiation of the treatment, is very limited. The serological tests are beneficial for large-scale use to assess the seroprevalence in a population, not for establishing the diagnosis.


  How to Diagnose COVID-19 When Diagnostic Tests Not Readily Available Top


Despite the limitation of the accuracy of the diagnostic tests for COVID-19, clinicians should perform rRT-PCR on all symptomatic children to confirm COVID-19. In fact, this test is not always available or cannot be accessed in some settings, so that a presumptive or probable diagnosis should be made. A simple algorithm or a scoring system consists of clinical findings, and simple laboratory investigations will be very valuable to help clinicians in this situation. Nevertheless, no studies or recommended guidelines have been published.

High probability of COVID-19 is more likely in a symptomatic child with no other apparent causes of the symptoms. Moreover, if the child is from an area with a high prevalence of local transmission rate COVID-19, in this situation, it is reasonable to make a presumptive diagnosis of COVID-19. The decision of treatment will depend on the severity of the clinical manifestations, the presence of comorbid, and the balance between the risk and benefit of the treatment.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Wang W, Xu Y, Gao R, Lu R, Han K, Wu G, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in different types of clinical specimens. JAMA 2020;323:1843-4.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Younes N, Al-Sadeq DW, Al-Jighefee H, Younes S, Al-Jamal O, Daas HI, et al. Challenges in laboratory diagnosis of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Viruses 2020;12:582.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Xie X, Zhong Z, Zhao W, Zheng C, Wang F, Liu J. Chest CT for typical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia: Relationship to negative RT-PCR testing. Radiology 2020;296:E41-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ai T, Yang Z, Hou H, Zhan C, Chen C, Lv W, et al. Correlation of chest CT and RT-PCR testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: A report of 1014 cases. Radiology 2020;296:E32-40.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Fang Y, Zhang H, Xie J, Lin M, Ying L, Pang P, et al. Sensitivity of chest CT for COVID-19: Comparison to RT-PCR. Radiology 2020;296:E115-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Yang Y, Yang M, Shen C, Wang F, Yuan J, Li J, et al. Evaluating the accuracy of different respiratory specimens in the laboratory diagnosis and monitoring the viral shedding of 2019-nCoV infections. medRxiv2020.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Food and Drug Administration. New York SARS-CoV-2 Real-time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; 2020.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Lauer SA, Grantz KH, Bi Q, Jones FK, Zheng Q, Meredith HR, et al. The incubation period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from publicly reported confirmed cases: Estimation and application. Ann Intern Med 2020;172:577-82.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Lisboa Bastos M, Tavaziva G, Abidi SK, Campbell JR, Haraoui LP, Johnston JC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2020;370:m2516.  Back to cited text no. 9
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Real-time Revers...
Serological Tests
How to Diagnose ...
References
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed302    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded51    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]