Dataset Information

Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA polymerase chain reaction using a clinical and radiological reference standard.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 are important for epidemiology, clinical management, and infection control. Limitations of oro-nasopharyngeal real-time PCR sensitivity have been described based on comparisons of single tests with repeated sampling. We assessed SARS-CoV-2 PCR clinical sensitivity using a clinical and radiological reference standard.

Methods

Between March-May 2020, 2060 patients underwent thoracic imaging and SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. Imaging was independently double- or triple-reported (if discordance) by blinded radiologists according to radiological criteria for COVID-19. We excluded asymptomatic patients and those with alternative diagnoses that could explain imaging findings. Associations with PCR-positivity were assessed with binomial logistic regression.

Results

901 patients had possible/probable imaging features and clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and 429 patients met the clinical and radiological reference case definition. SARS-CoV-2 PCR sensitivity was 68% (95% confidence interval 64-73), was highest 7-8 days after symptom onset (78% (68-88)) and was lower among current smokers (adjusted odds ratio 0.23 (0.12-0.42) p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In patients with clinical and imaging features of COVID-19, PCR test sensitivity was 68%, and was lower among smokers; a finding that could explain observations of lower disease incidence and that warrants further validation. PCR tests should be interpreted considering imaging, symptom duration and smoking status.

SUBMITTER: Stockdale AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057690 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReal-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for the identification of viral nucleic acid is the current standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but technical issues limit its utilization for large-scale screening. Serological immunoglobulin M (IgM)/IgG testing has been proposed as a useful tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 exposure.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to compare the results of the rapid serological VivaDiag test for SARS-CoV-2-related IgM/IgG detection with those of the standard RT-PCR laboratory test for identifying SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid.MethodsWe simultaneously performed both serological and molecular tests with a consecutive series of 191 symptomatic patients. The results provided by a new rapid serological colorimetric test for analyzing IgM/IgG expression were compared with those of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection.ResultsOf the 191 subjects, 70 (36.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR results, while 34 (17.3%) tested positive based on serological IgM/IgG expression. Additionally, 13 (6.8%) subjects tested positive based on serological test results, but also tested negative based on RT-PCR results. The rapid serological test had a sensitivity of 30% and a specificity of 89% compared to the standard RT-PCR assay. Interestingly, the performance of both assays improved 8 days after symptom appearance. After 10 days had passed since symptom appearance, the predictive value of the rapid serological test was higher than that of the standard molecular assay (proportion of positive results: 40% vs 20%). Multivariate analysis showed that age >58 years (P<.01) and period of >15 days after symptom onset (P<.02) were significant and independent factors associated with serological test positivity.ConclusionsThe rapid serological test analyzed in this study seems limited in terms of usefulness when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it may be useful for providing relevant information on people's immunoreaction to COVID-19 exposure.