Dataset Information

False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

COVID-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.

Methods

SARS-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.

Results

During 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.

Conclusions

Studies 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.

SUBMITTER: Kanji JN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7794619 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: With the worldwide spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), various antibody detection kits have been developed to test for SARS-CoV-2- specific IgG, IgM, and total antibody. However, the use of different testing methods under various heat-inactivation conditions might affect the COVID-19 detection results. Methods: Seven different antibody detection kits produced by four manufacturers for detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgM, and total antibody were tested at Wuhan Huoshenshan Hospital, China. Most of the kits used the indirect immunity, capture, and double-antigen sandwich methods. The effects of various heat-inactivation conditions on SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG, IgM, and total antibody detection were analyzed for the different test methods. Results: Using the indirect immunity method, values for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody significantly increased and those for IgM antibody decreased with increasing temperature of heat-inactivation using indirect immunity method. However, values for SARS-CoV-2 IgM and total antibody showed no change when the capture and double-antigen sandwich methods were used. The changes in IgG and IgM antibody values with the indirect immunity method indicated that heat-inactivation could affect COVID-19 detection results obtained using this method. In particular, 18 (22.2%) SARS-CoV-2 IgM positive samples were detected as negative with heat-inactivation at 65°C for 30 min, and one (25%) IgG negative sample was detected as positive after heat-inactivation at 56°C for 60 min and 60°C for 30 min. Conclusions: Heat-inactivation could increase SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody values, and decrease IgM antibody values, causing potential false-positive or false-negative results for COVID-19 antibody detection using the indirect immunity method. Thus, before conducting antibody testing, the testing platforms should be evaluated in accordance with the relevant requirements to ensure accurate COVID-19 detection results.

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.