Lau Chin Shern, Oh Helen M L, Aw Tar Choon
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Changi General Hospital, 2 Simei Street 3, Singapore 529889, Singapore.
Department of Infectious Diseases, Changi General Hospital, 2 Simei Street 3, Singapore 529889, Singapore.
Vaccines (Basel). 2024 Dec 26;13(1):9. doi: 10.3390/vaccines13010009.
Although the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has ended, there are still many important lessons we can learn, as the pandemic profoundly affected every area of laboratory practice. During the pandemic, extensive changes to laboratory staffing had to be implemented, as many healthcare institutions required regular screening of all healthcare staff. Several studies examined the effectiveness of different screening regimens and concluded that repeated testing, even with lower sensitivity tests, could rival the performance of gold-standard RT-PCR testing in the detection of new cases. Many assay evaluations were performed both in the earlier and later periods of the pandemic. They included both nucleocapsid/spike antibodies and automated antigen assays. Early in the pandemic, it was generally agreed that the initial nucleocapsid antibody assays had poor sensitivity when used before 14 days of disease onset, with total or IgG antibodies being preferred over the use of IgM. Spike antibody assays gradually replaced nucleocapsid antibody assays, as most people were vaccinated. Spike antibodies tracked the rise in antibodies after vaccination with mRNA vaccines and became invaluable in the assessment of vaccine response. Studies demonstrated robust antibody secretion with each vaccine dose and could last for several months post-vaccination. When antigen testing was introduced, they became effective tools to identify affected patients when used serially or in an orthogonal fashion with RT-PCR testing. Despite the numerous findings during the pandemic period, research in COVID-19 has slowed. To this day it is difficult to identify a true neutralizing antibody test for the virus. An appropriate antibody level that would confer protective immunity against the plethora of new variants remains elusive. We hope that a summary of events during the pandemic could provide important insights to consider in planning for the next viral pandemic.
尽管2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行已经结束,但我们仍能从中汲取许多重要经验教训,因为这场大流行深刻影响了实验室实践的各个领域。在大流行期间,由于许多医疗机构要求对所有医护人员进行定期筛查,实验室人员配置不得不进行广泛调整。多项研究考察了不同筛查方案的有效性,并得出结论,即使是敏感性较低的检测方法,重复检测在检测新病例方面的表现也可与金标准逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)检测相媲美。在大流行的早期和后期都进行了许多检测方法评估。这些评估包括核衣壳/刺突抗体检测和自动化抗原检测。在大流行早期,人们普遍认为,在发病14天之前使用时,最初的核衣壳抗体检测敏感性较差,总抗体或IgG抗体比IgM抗体更受青睐。随着大多数人接种疫苗,刺突抗体检测逐渐取代了核衣壳抗体检测。刺突抗体追踪了接种mRNA疫苗后抗体的上升情况,在评估疫苗反应中变得至关重要。研究表明,每次接种疫苗剂量后都会有强劲的抗体分泌,并且在接种疫苗后可持续数月。当引入抗原检测时,将其与RT-PCR检测串联使用或以正交方式使用时,它们成为识别受感染患者的有效工具。尽管在大流行期间有众多发现,但COVID-19的研究已经放缓。时至今日,仍难以确定一种真正针对该病毒的中和抗体检测方法。能够针对大量新变种提供保护性免疫的合适抗体水平仍然难以捉摸。我们希望对大流行期间的事件进行总结能够为规划下一次病毒大流行提供重要的参考见解。