Dataset Information

Real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test in symptomatic patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Understanding the false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is pivotal for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic and it has implications for patient management. Our aim was to determine the real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.

Methods

This population-based retrospective study was conducted in March-April 2020 in the Helsinki Capital Region, Finland. Adults who were clinically suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection and underwent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, with sufficient data in their medical records for grading of clinical suspicion were eligible. In addition to examining the first RT-PCR test of repeat-tested individuals, we also used high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 as the reference standard for calculating the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.

Results

All 1,194 inpatients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [18.3] years; 45.2% women) admitted to COVID-19 cohort wards during the study period were included. The outpatient cohort of 1,814 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [17.2] years; 69.1% women) was sampled from epidemiological line lists by systematic quasi-random sampling. The sensitivity (95% CI) for laboratory confirmed cases (repeat-tested patients) was 85.7% (81.5-89.1%) inpatients; 95.5% (92.2-97.5%) outpatients, 89.9% (88.2-92.1%) all. When also patients that were graded as high suspicion but never tested positive were included in the denominator, the sensitivity (95% CI) was: 67.5% (62.9-71.9%) inpatients; 34.9% (31.4-38.5%) outpatients; 47.3% (44.4-50.3%) all.

Conclusions

The clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing was only moderate at best. The relatively high false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing need to be accounted for in clinical decision making, epidemiological interpretations, and when using RT-PCR as a reference for other tests.

SUBMITTER: Kortela E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8139477 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.