Analysis of COVID-19 Diagnosis Techniques

Analysis of COVID-19 Diagnosis Techniques

            COVID-19 is a new discovery in the medical world, affecting humans as the main subjects. It is a communicable disease that has been confirmed to be caused by a strain of coronavirus. As at now, COVID-19 has no known cure whatsoever but only precautionary measures to help curb both contracting and its spread altogether. The most known symptoms in people who have tested positive to the pandemic include fever, a sensation of tiredness and a dry cough. In addition, there are other mild symptoms such as loss of smell and taste, conjunctivitis, sore throat, headache and diarrhoea. There are a number of verified medical procedures that are used to test patient’s susceptibility to COVID-19 and also the procedures to take care of victims that have already contracted the pandemic. This essay will, therefore, give a detailed analysis of the techniques used to diagnose COVID-19, the principle behind the technique and its pros and cons altogether.

In testing for COVID-19 in patients, there are various methods that are used by the medical expertise either directly or indirectly. For the direct techniques, there is that of detection of the virus directly by diagnosing the patient’  spatient’s Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) using the Polymerase chain reaction, (PCR). Through PCR, the medical experts can take small samples of RNA and multiply them to a higher figure that is suited in carrying out the diagnosis. If the test is positive, SARS-CoV2 RNA will be detected in the collected samples. Absence if this signifies that the patient is free from COVID-19 (Marbella, 2020). To be specific, the PCR is carried out on a real-time basis, thus referred to as the RT-PCR. RT-PCR is used as a nuclear-derived mechanism that can detect a foreign genetic material within the body inclusive of a virus.

COVID-19 causative virus, that is, SARS-CoV-2 are formed by RNA, which implies that they have to rely on infiltrating to healthier cells so that they can survive and multiply. However, once the virus gets into the hosts’ cells, it uses its own genetic code which means that the body organs particularly the affected once will respond by manufacturing even more viral cells. Therefore, for the PCR method to be effective and efficient, the medical experts need to first turn the RNA into DNA so that they will be able to detect the virus within the host cells. As opposed to RNA, DNA can be amplified and replicated at a faster rate a which is part of the RT-PCR viral procedural detection (Jawerth, 2020). After amplification of the DNA, the medical experts will focus on a specific transcribed viral DNA after multiplying a series of DNA strands in order to be sure which specific parts are mostly affected by the virus as per their test.

The advantages of this technique are that it has high sensitivity and viral recognition specificity once used in testing the RNA samples collected. This means that in case a victim is suffering from covid-19, it will be easy to detect and early stage, which means its control will be effective. Also, since it has a higher sensitivity, it is a good diagnosis technique that can be used to affirm that a patient has been cleared off from the viral attack once the test turns out negative. In addition, since patients can either be symptomatic or asymptomatic, this technique can be effective and efficient in making sure that not only the symptomatic patients are discovered but also the asymptomatic (Marbella, 2020). This will not only create awareness to the public in general but will help curb its spread to susceptible people without their notice.

Also, PCR diagnoses are accurate even for long periods, that is, for an approximate of 30 days,, a positive patient to the virus will still test positive when the test is conducted. Similarly, once the viral RNA has been detected prior to the symptoms, immediately after the initial symptoms, the viral load will begin to appreciate to reach an acute phase. On the contrary, it is a laborious diagnoses procedure since it includes laboratory tests and analysis before the final interpretation can be made. This means it can take even longer or better still limit the number of persons that get tested within a certain period of time. Similarly, it requires safety instruments and expertise to avoid contaminating the samples collected or even end up contracting the disease instead (Tang et al., 2020). This means that it is a risky operation, and any error will result in null results or misinterpreted information. It is, therefore, a known diagnosis technique for COVID-19, but still it is not accurate enough to give detailed information that ca be relied on fully.

In addition, there that of indirect diagnosis techniques such as igG detection or the igM antibodies from the collected blood samples. Currently, this technique is perceived as a mechanism that has an affirmative specificity and sensitivity in viral detection. This is supported by the fact that; this diagnosis technique has been used to detect viral existence in blood samples that existed both in the past and also as they evolve into a new strain. For igM, it takes 7-10 days before and after the onset of the symptom after which it starts to decrease with time, particularly 20 days. On the other hand, igG is more positive from day 14-20 and can be maintained for a long time (CDC, 2020). Similarly, for serological testing of viral presence, most cases will be detected towards the recovery phase. This is because during this stage, most of the possibilities of a clinical intervention have already been passed.

Also, serological tests are important as it does not only test the current health status of the victim but also the previous records in case, they suffered the disease prior. The igM are produced as immune response particularly from the spleen which is short lived and thus need an urgent test. On the other hand, IgG occurs at the end which means that this test entirely tests the immune system of the victim’  svictim’s blood sample before the virus infection, during and even after the infection (Jacofsky et al., 2020). It is test that begins by collecting blood samples from the victims being tested after which the blood is expressed to a series of laboratory sets. The results are then analyzed and the data obtained is studied to give a record of the patient’  spatient’s health status. This can be either a positive patient to SARS-CoV2 at the moment or even a victim who had the condition before.

This technique is a positive one because in its procedure, it relies on the Immunoglobin kinetics. This immunoglobin kinetics can be used theoretically to indicate the stage at which a victim is at. This can be at the initial stages associated with the virus, a past condition that the patient had without his knowledge or even a present condition. This will, therefore, make it easy to come up with a dependable protection prescription and avoid the virus getting to stages that could cause extreme harm to the patient. However, this technique has drawbacks that limit its effectiveness as a COVID-19 detection scheme (Cassaniti et al., 2020). This include, this technique is not essential for an early diagnosis since for it to be effective, it must be between the 7^th to the 14^th day since contracting the virus. This means that the victim’  svictim’s health symptoms will not be detected at early stages and they might clear as negative yet they are positive though at an initial stage.

Also, during the blood collection and sampling, it has been discovered that each individual’  sindividual’s produces a different reaction as far as their antibodies are concerned whenever the virus gets into their body cells. This means that for the symptoms to occur, each person will have a different pace and progress of attack that will bring out the physical signs that do not even lie between the 7^th to 14^th day rule. This indicates that the tests for this people will always be giving false negatives. On the other hand, this will not only risk the patient’  spatient’s life but will also increase the chances of spreading the disease to healthy people. This was even affirmed by Food and Drug Administration, (FDA) about how it may create unseen problems in case several cases of false negatives are obtained from the test (Marbella, 2020). This will mean that more patients that have contracted the disease in their window stages will eb perceived as negative.

Lastly, both direct and indirect diagnosis techniques can be combined, that is, that of PCR and serological tests. Although it is confirmed that the RT-PCR is the most effective diagnosis technique, combining it with antibody detection can be useful for epidemiological purposes and at times when the patient is on an acute stage if infection. The serological tests will give out an observation of the IgG and IgM while the PCR the presence of SARS-CoV2 in the collected DNA samples. This will mean that not only the patient’  spatient’s status will be known but also the stage of infection that they are at. This means that the patients will be grouped as, infected patients who have been found positive to PCR, those that have been confirmed as risk patient with a negative PCR and negative IgG and lastly, patients who are possibly immunized with a negative PCR and negative IgG (Marbella, 2020). This test should, therefore, be conducted with care as the serological test can at times give false negatives.

 

Graphical Representation of a combination of PCR and Serological diagnosis techniques

 

Tabular Representation of a combination of PCR and Serological diagnosis techniques

 

In conclusion, COVID-19 diagnosis techniques have all been found to have positive sides and their drawbacks too as far as SARS-CoV2 detection is concerned. However, the combination of RT-PCR and serological test is seen to eb more effective in analyzing a victim’  svictim’s health status. This is followed by RT-PCR which is also effective despite a few drawbacks whereas the serological test of antibodies for IgM and IgG is less preferred due to the problem of false negatives. In general, the diagnosis techniques are at least essential as they help the medical expertise observe and interpret a patient ‘spatient’s health status and, therefore, help prevent spread of the virus and also save the life of the patient in advance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

‌Cassaniti, I., Novazzi, F., Giardina, F., Salinaro, F., Sachs, M., Perlini, S., … & Baldanti, F. (2020).             Performance of VivaDiag COVID‐19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test is inadequate for diagnosis of COVID‐19 in acute patients referring to emergency room department. Journal of medical        virology.

CDC. (2020, February 11). Information for Laboratories about Coronavirus (COVID-19). Centers           for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-    ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html

Jacofsky, D., Jacofsky, E. M., & Jacofsky, M. (2020). Understanding Antibody Testing for           COVID-19. The Journal of Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.04.055

Jawerth, N. (2020, March 27). How is the COVID-19 Virus Detected using Real Time RT-PCR?             Www.Iaea.Org. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/how-is-the-covid-19-virus-            detected-using-real-time-rt-pcr

Marbella. (2020, April 11). Techniques for an accurate and early diagnosis of COVID 19. HC             Marbella.https://www.hcmarbella.com/en/techniques-for-an-accurate-and-earlydiagnosis-  of-covid-19/

Tang, Y. W., Schmitz, J. E., Persing, D. H., & Stratton, C. W. (2020). Laboratory diagnosis of     COVID-19: current issues and challenges. Journal of clinical microbiology, 58(6).

‌

‌