Combating the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demands accurate, rapid, and point-of-care testing with fast results to triage cases for isolation and treatment. The current testing relies on RT-PCR, which is routinely performed in well-equipped laboratories by trained professionals at specific locations. However, during busy periods high numbers of samples queued for testing can delay the test results, impacting upon efforts to reduce the infection risk. Besides, the absence of well-established laboratories at remote sites and low-resourced environments can contribute to a silent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). These reasons compel the need to accommodate point-of-care testing for COVID-19 that meets the ASSURED criteria (Affordable, Sensitive, Specific, User-friendly, Rapid, robust, Equipment-free, and Deliverable). This study assessed the agreement and accuracy of the portable Biomeme SARS-CoV-2 system against the gold standard tests. Nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs were used. Of the 192 samples tested using the Biomeme SARS-CoV-2 system, the results from 189 samples (98.4%) were in agreement with the reference standard-of-care RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. The portable system generated simultaneous results for nine samples in 80 mins with high positive and negative percent agreements of 99.0% and 97.8%, respectively. We performed separate testing in a sealed glove box, offering complete biosafety containment. Thus, the Biomeme SARS-CoV-2 system can help decentralize COVID-19 testing and offer rapid test results for patients in remote and low-resourced settings. Single Sentence Summary The Biomeme SARS-CoV-2 system can help decentralize COVID-19 testing and offer rapid test results for patients in remote sites and low-resourced settings.

This study aimed to understand the pathophysiology of host responses to infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/(COVID-19) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and to identify proteins for patient stratification with different grades of illness severity. Patients and Methods: Peripheral blood samples from 43 patients with different grades of COVID-19, 7 MERS-CoV patients admitted to the ICU, and 10 healthy subjects were analyzed using label-free quantitative liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Results: We identified 193 and 91 proteins that differed significantly between COVID-19 and MERS-CoV sample groups, respectively, and 49 overlapped between datasets. Only 10 proteins are diagnostic of asymptomatic cases, 12 are prognostic of recovery from severe illness, and 28 are prognostic of a fatal outcome of COVID-19. These proteins are implicated in virus-specific/related signaling networks. Notable among the top canonical pathways are humoral immunity, inflammation, acute-phase response signaling, liver X receptor/retinoid X receptor (LXR/RXR) activation, coagulation, and the complement system. Furthermore, we confirmed positive viral shedding in 11.76% of 51 additional peripheral blood samples, indicating that caution should be taken to avoid the possible risk of transfusion of infected blood products. Conclusion:We identified COVID-19 and MERS-CoV protein panels that have potential as biomarkers and might assist in the prognosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The identified markers further our understanding of COVID-19 disease pathophysiology and may have prognostic or therapeutic potential in predicting or managing host cell responses to human COVID-19 and MERS-CoV infections.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory hematological tests are widely used in clinical practice to assess health and disease conditions. Reference ranges provided by laboratory reports are considered the most authoritative medical tools to assist in the decision-making phase. International standards institutes recommend that reference ranges be established for each region. OBJECTIVES: Provide reference values of routine hematological parameters in Saudi adults according to age and gender. DESIGN: Cross-sectional SETTING: Central province of Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Apparently healthy Saudi adults were subjected to laboratory testing of routine hematological parameters (full blood count, hemostatic profile, and serum hematinics), after completing a detailed health medical questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hematological reference values based on the local population. SAMPLE SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS: 637 after screening 827 potentially healthy Saudi adults with ages ranging from 15 to 65 years. RESULTS: The reference values of routine hematological parameters for the full population and by gender are presented with 90% CI as the lower and upper limits. Reference ranges mostly differed from universal established ranges shown in textbooks. CONCLUSION: The reference ranges of routine hematologic parameters for accurate assessment and appropriate management will help improve the routine clinical care of the adult Saudi population. LIMITATIONS: Difficulty in assessing health status of participants, who could have subclinical illnesses not reflected in the evaluated blood measurement. Lack of ability to eliminate individuals who might be carriers for haemoglobinopathies. Studies with larger sample sizes from different areas of the country are required to achieve a more accurate representation of the whole Saudi population. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

No abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a potentially lethal pathogen recently found to be responsible for the pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). At present PCR testing remains the standard method of diagnosing COVID-19 patients. Recently, testing for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin was identified as a promising method of diagnosing COVID-19 and assessing an individual’s exposure to the virus. In the current study, four different techniques—CLIA, ELISA, ECLIA, and rapid testing—were used to assess the IgG antibody response in 20 patients following COVID-19 exposure. The data obtained using the CLIA and ELISA techniques illustrated that 90 percent of COVID-19 patients produced the SARS-COV-2 IgG antibody. Processing samples using the ECLIA method showed that these antibodies were present in 80 percent of all patients; however, the rapid testing technique showed that only 70 percent of patients were able to generate an immune response. The CLIA and ELISA techniques seemed to be more sensitive in terms of detecting SARS-COV-2 IgG, as they revealed that a high percentage of COVID-19 patients developed the IgG antibody. Conducting further research on the ongoing pandemic COVID-19, particularly studying antibody testing, will be valuable for diagnosing and monitoring patients.