False negative of RT-PCR and prolonged nucleic acid conversion in COVID-19: Rather than recurrence.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Xiao AT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7262304 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundProlonged nucleic acid conversion and false-negative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results might occur in COVID-19 patients rather than infection recurrence.Presentation of casesWe reported four cases who had negative RT-PCR results, in addition to the last two consecutive negative results. Patient-1 had negative RT-PCR results twice (the 6th and 8th) from a total of 11 swabs. Patient-2 had negative RT-PCR results once (the 5th) from a total of 8 swabs. Patient-3 showed negative results of RT-PCR twice (the 4th and 6th) from a total of 11 swabs. Patient-4 had negative RT-PCR results twice (the 2nd and 10th) from a total of 14 swabs.DiscussionThe fluctuating trend of our RT-PCR results in our cases might be due to insufficient viral material in the specimen, laboratory errors during sampling, restrictions on sample transportation, or mutations in the primary and probe target regions in the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Several factors might affect the occurrence of prolonged nucleic acid conversion, including older age, comorbidities, such as diabetes and hypertension, and impaired immune function.ConclusionHere, we confirmed the occurrence of prolonged nucleic acid conversion and the possibility of false negative RT-PCR results in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7536520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020.ResultsWe included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.ConclusionsThere is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence).Systematic review registrationProtocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.
| S-EPMC7728293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a multi-system infection with emerging evidence-based antiviral and anti-inflammatory therapies to improve disease prognosis. However, a subset of patients with COVID-19 signs and symptoms have repeatedly negative RT-PCR tests, leading to treatment hesitancy. We used comparative serology early in the COVID-19 pandemic when background seroprevalence was low to estimate the likelihood of COVID-19 infection among RT-PCR negative patients with clinical signs and/or symptoms compatible with COVID-19.MethodsBetween April and October 2020, we conducted serologic testing of patients with (i) signs and symptoms of COVID-19 who were repeatedly negative by RT-PCR ('Probables'; N = 20), (ii) signs and symptoms of COVID-19 but with a potential alternative diagnosis ('Suspects'; N = 15), (iii) no signs and symptoms of COVID-19 ('Non-suspects'; N = 43), (iv) RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients (N = 40), and (v) pre-pandemic samples (N = 55).ResultsProbables had similar seropositivity and levels of IgG and IgM antibodies as propensity-score matched RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients (60.0% vs 80.0% for IgG, p-value = 0.13; 50.0% vs 72.5% for IgM, p-value = 0.10), but multi-fold higher seropositivity rates than Suspects and matched Non-suspects (60.0% vs 13.3% and 11.6% for IgG; 50.0% vs 0% and 4.7% for IgM respectively; p-values < 0.01). However, Probables were half as likely to receive COVID-19 treatment than the RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients with similar disease severity.ConclusionsFindings from this study indicate a high likelihood of acute COVID-19 among RT-PCR negative with typical signs/symptoms, but a common omission of COVID-19 therapies among these patients. Clinically diagnosed COVID-19, independent of RT-PCR positivity, thus has a potential vital role in guiding treatment decisions.
| S-EPMC8841043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of COVID-19 has been devastating on a global scale. The negative conversion time (NCT) of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is closely related to clinical manifestation and disease progression in COVID-19 patients. Our study aimed to predict factors associated with prolonged NCT of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in mild/moderate COVID-19 patients.MethodsThe clinical features, laboratory data and treatment outcomes of COVID-19 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Then univariate and multivariate analysis were used to screen out risk factors of influencing prolonged NCT of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.ResultsThirty-two hospitalized mild/moderate COVID-19 patients were enrolled. The general clinical symptoms were cough (78.1%), fever (75%), diarrhea (68.8%), expectoration (56.3%), and nausea (37.5%). More than 40% of the patients had decreased erythrocyte, hemoglobin and leucocyte and 93.8% patients were detected in abnormalities of chest CT. The median NCT of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was 19.5 days (IQR: 14.25-25). Univariate analysis found fever, nausea, diarrhea and abnormalities in chest CTs were positively associated with prolonged NCT of viral RNA (P< 0.05). The multivariate Cox proportional hazard model revealed that fever [Exp (B), 0.284; 95% CI, 0.114-0.707; P<0.05] and nausea [Exp (B), 0.257; 95%CI, 0.096-0.689; P<0.05] were two significant independent factors.ConclusionsFever and nausea were two significant independent factors in prolonged NCT of viral RNA in mild/moderate COVID-19 patients, which provided a useful references for disease progression and treatment of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7856599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays are used to test for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. RT-PCR tests are highly specific and the probability of false positives is low, but false negatives are possible depending on swab type and time since symptom onset.AimTo determine how the probability of obtaining a false-negative test in infected patients is affected by time since symptom onset and swab type.MethodsWe used generalised additive mixed models to analyse publicly available data from patients who received multiple RT-PCR tests and were identified as SARS-CoV-2 positive at least once.ResultsThe probability of a positive test decreased with time since symptom onset, with oropharyngeal (OP) samples less likely to yield a positive result than nasopharyngeal (NP) samples. The probability of incorrectly identifying an uninfected individual due to a false-negative test was considerably reduced if negative tests were repeated 24 hours later. For a small false-positive test probability (<0.5%), the true number of infected individuals was larger than the number of positive tests. For a higher false-positive test probability, the true number of infected individuals was smaller than the number of positive tests.ConclusionNP samples are more sensitive than OP samples. The later an infected individual is tested after symptom onset, the less likely they are to test positive. This has implications for identifying infected patients, contact tracing and discharging convalescing patients who are potentially still infectious.
| S-EPMC7812420 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7282766 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7330311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 and false-negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), and develop and internally validate a diagnostic risk score to predict risk of COVID-19 (including RT-PCR-negative COVID-19) among medical admissions.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTwo hospitals within an acute NHS Trust in London, UK.ParticipantsAll patients admitted to medical wards between 2 March and 3 May 2020.OutcomesMain outcomes were diagnosis of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results, sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and mortality during hospital admission. For the diagnostic risk score, we report discrimination, calibration and diagnostic accuracy of the model and simplified risk score and internal validation.Results4008 patients were admitted between 2 March and 3 May 2020. 1792 patients (44.8%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 1391 were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive and 283 had only negative RT-PCRs. Compared with a clinical reference standard, sensitivity of RT-PCR in hospital patients was 83.1% (95% CI 81.2%-84.8%). Broadly, patients with false-negative RT-PCR COVID-19 and those confirmed by positive PCR had similar demographic and clinical characteristics but lower risk of intensive care unit admission and lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.61). A simple diagnostic risk score comprising of age, sex, ethnicity, cough, fever or shortness of breath, National Early Warning Score 2, C reactive protein and chest radiograph appearance had moderate discrimination (area under the receiver-operator curve 0.83, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.85), good calibration and was internally validated.ConclusionRT-PCR-negative COVID-19 is common and is associated with lower mortality despite similar presentation. Diagnostic risk scores could potentially help triage patients requiring admission but need external validation.
| S-EPMC7874904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMolecular-based tests used to identify symptomatic or asymptomatic patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 are characterized by high specificity but scarce sensitivity, generating false-negative results. We aimed to estimate, through a systematic review of the literature, the rate of RT-PCR false negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically searched Pubmed, Embase and CENTRAL as well as a list of reference literature. We included observational studies that collected samples from respiratory tract to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA using RT-PCR, reporting the number of false-negative subjects and the number of final patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis. Reported rates of false negatives were pooled in a meta-analysis as appropriate. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies and graded the quality of evidence according to the GRADE method. All information in this article is current up to February 2021.ResultsWe included 32 studies, enrolling more than 18,000 patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. The overall false-negative rate was 0.12 (95%CI from 0.10 to 0.14) with very low certainty of evidence. The impact of misdiagnoses was estimated according to disease prevalence; a range between 2 and 58/1,000 subjects could be misdiagnosed with a disease prevalence of 10%, increasing to 290/1,000 misdiagnosed subjects with a disease prevalence of 50%.ConclusionsThis systematic review showed that up to 58% of COVID-19 patients may have initial false-negative RT-PCR results, suggesting the need to implement a correct diagnostic strategy to correctly identify suspected cases, thereby reducing false-negative results and decreasing the disease burden among the population.
| S-EPMC8646643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is diagnosed via detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using real time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR). Performance of many SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR assays is not entirely known due to the lack of a gold standard. We sought to evaluate the false negative rate (FNR) and sensitivity of our laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR targeting the envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) genes.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR results at the Public Health Laboratory (Alberta, Canada) from January 21 to April 18, 2020 were reviewed to identify patients with an initial negative rtRT-PCR followed by a positive result on repeat testing within 14 days (defined as discordant results). Negative samples from these discordant specimens were re-tested using three alternate rtRT-PCR assays (targeting the E gene and N1/N2 regions of the nucleocapsid genes) to assess for false negative (FN) results.ResultsDuring the time period specified, 95,919 patients (100,001 samples) were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 49 patients were found to have discordant results including 49 positive and 52 negative swabs. Repeat testing of 52 negative swabs found five FNs (from five separate patients). Assuming 100% specificity of the diagnostic assay, the FNR and sensitivity in this group of patients with discordant testing was 9.3% (95% CI 1.5-17.0%) and 90.7% (95% CI 82.6-98.9%) respectively.ConclusionsStudies to understand the FNR of routinely used assays are important to confirm adequate clinical performance. In this study, most FN results were due to low amounts of SARS-CoV-2 virus concentrations in patients with multiple specimens collected during different stages of infection. Post-test clinical evaluation of each patient is advised to ensure that rtRT-PCR results are not the only factor in excluding COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7794619 | biostudies-literature