Dataset Information

Insight into the practical performance of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 using serological data: a cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Virological detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through RT-PCR has limitations for surveillance. Serological tests can be an important complementary approach. We aimed to assess the practical performance of RT-PCR-based surveillance protocols and determine the extent of undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection in Shenzhen, China.

Methods

We did a cohort study in Shenzhen, China and attempted to recruit by telephone all RT-PCR-negative close contacts (defined as those who lived in the same residence as, or shared a meal, travelled, or socially interacted with, an index case within 2 days before symptom onset) of all RT-PCR-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 detected since January, 2020, via contact tracing. We measured anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum samples from RT-PCR-negative close contacts 2-15 weeks after initial virological testing by RT-PCR, using total antibody, IgG, and IgM ELISAs. In addition, we did a serosurvey of volunteers from neighbourhoods with no reported cases, and from neighbourhoods with reported cases. We assessed rates of infection undetected by RT-PCR, performance of RT-PCR over the course of infection, and characteristics of individuals who were seropositive on total antibody ELISA but RT-PCR negative.

Findings

Between April 12 and May 4, 2020, we enrolled and collected serological samples from 2345 (53·0%) of 4422 RT-PCR-negative close contacts of cases of RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2. 1175 (50·1%) of 2345 were close contacts of cases diagnosed in Shenzhen with contact tracing details, and of these, 880 (74·9%) had serum samples collected more than 2 weeks after exposure to an index case and were included in our analysis. 40 (4·5%) of 880 RT-PCR-negative close contacts were positive on total antibody ELISA. The seropositivity rate with total antibody ELISA among RT-PCR-negative close contacts, adjusted for assay performance, was 4·1% (95% CI 2·9-5·7), which was significantly higher than among individuals residing in neighbourhoods with no reported cases (0·0% [95% CI 0·0-1·1]). RT-PCR-positive individuals were 8·0 times (95% CI 5·3-12·7) more likely to report symptoms than those who were RT-PCR-negative but seropositive, but both groups had a similar distribution of sex, age, contact frequency, and mode of contact. RT-PCR did not detect 48 (36% [95% CI 28-44]) of 134 infected close contacts, and false-negative rates appeared to be associated with stage of infection.

Interpretation

Even rigorous RT-PCR testing protocols might miss a substantial proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections, perhaps in part due to difficulties in determining the timing of testing in asymptomatic individuals for optimal sensitivity. RT-PCR-based surveillance and control protocols that include rapid contact tracing, universal RT-PCR testing, and mandatory 2-week quarantine were, nevertheless, able to contain community spread in Shenzhen, China.

Funding

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Special Foundation of Science and Technology Innovation Strategy of Guangdong Province, and Key Project of Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Commission.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7816573 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Insight into the practical performance of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 using serological data: a cohort study.

Zhang Zhen Z Bi Qifang Q Fang Shisong S Wei Lan L Wang Xin X He Jianfan J Wu Yongsheng Y Liu Xiaojian X Gao Wei W Zhang Renli R Gong Wenfeng W Su Qiru Q Azman Andrew S AS Lessler Justin J Zou Xuan X

The Lancet. Microbe 20210119 2

<h4>Background</h4>Virological detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through RT-PCR has limitations for surveillance. Serological tests can be an important complementary approach. We aimed to assess the practical performance of RT-PCR-based surveillance protocols and determine the extent of undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection in Shenzhen, China.<h4>Methods</h4>We did a cohort study in Shenzhen, China and attempted to recruit by telephone all RT-PCR-negative close ...[more]

PMID: 33495759

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.FindingsOf the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.InterpretationOur review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.FundingHong Kong Research Grants Council.

Project description:RT-PCR tests based on RNA extraction from nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are promoted as the "gold standard" for SARS-CoV-2 detection. However, the use of saliva samples offers noninvasive self-collection more suitable for high-throughput testing. This study evaluated performance of the TaqPath COVID-19 Fast PCR Combo kit 2.0 assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in raw saliva relative to a lab-developed direct RT-PCR test (SalivaDirect-based PCR, SDB-PCR) and an RT-PCR test based on RNA extraction from NPS. Saliva and NPS samples were collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals (N = 615). Saliva samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using the TaqPath COVID-19 Fast PCR Combo kit 2.0 and the SDB-PCR, while NPS samples were tested by RT-PCR in RNA extracts according to the Irish national testing system. TaqPath COVID-19 Fast PCR Combo kit 2.0 detected SARS-CoV-2 in 52 saliva samples, of which 51 were also positive with the SDB-PCR. Compared to the NPS "gold standard" biospecimen method, 49 samples displayed concordant results, while three samples (35<Ct<37) were positive on raw saliva. Among the negative samples, 10 discordant cases were found with the TaqPath COVID-19 Fast PCR Combo kit 2.0 (PPA-83.05%; NPA-99.44%), compared to the RNA extraction-based NPS method, performing similarly to the SDB-PCR (PPA-84.75%; NPA-99.63%). The direct RT-PCR testing of saliva samples shows high concordance with the NPS extraction-based method for SARS-CoV-2 detection, and therefore provides a cost-effective and highly scalable system for high-throughput COVID-19 rapid-testing. IMPORTANCE The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for viral diagnostic systems that are accurate and could be deployed at large population scales. Large-scale diagnostic or surveillance testing of large numbers of people requires collection of infected biological samples that is easy and rapid. Here, we demonstrate that raw saliva samples can be easily collected and tested by RT-PCR assays. Indeed, we find that direct testing of raw saliva by two different RT-PCR assays is as accurate (if not more accurate) than nasal swab-based RT-PCR testing. We present a cost-effective and highly scalable system for high-throughput COVID-19 rapid-testing.

Dataset Information

Insight into the practical performance of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 using serological data: a cohort study.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Insight into the practical performance of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 using serological data: a cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets