ABSTRACT
Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on upper respiratory tract (URT) samples is the primary method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infections and guide public health measures, with a supportive role for serology. We reinforce previous findings on limited sensitivity of PCR testing, and solidify this fact by statistically utilizing a firm basis of multiple tests per individual. We integrate stratifications with respect to several patient characteristics such as severity of disease and time since onset of symptoms. Bayesian statistical modelling was used to retrospectively determine the sensitivity of RT-PCR using SARS-CoV-2 serology in 644 COVID-19-suspected patients with varying degrees of disease severity and duration. The sensitivity of RT-PCR ranged between 80% - 95%; increasing with disease severity, it decreased rapidly over time in mild COVID-19 cases. Negative URT RT-PCR results should be interpreted in the context of clinical characteristics, especially with regard to containment of viral transmission based on 'test, trace and isolate'. Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, RT-PCR, serology, sensitivity, public health.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Contact Tracing , False Negative Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology , Quarantine , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Severity of Illness IndexABSTRACT
Objectives: The novel coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, spreads rapidly across the world. The exponential increase in the number of cases has resulted in overcrowding of emergency departments (ED). Detection of SARS-CoV-2 is based on an RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal swab material. However, RT-PCR testing is time-consuming and many hospitals deal with a shortage of testing materials. Therefore, we aimed to develop an algorithm to rapidly evaluate an individual's risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the ED. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, routine laboratory parameters (C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, absolute neutrophil and lymphocyte counts), demographic data and the chest X-ray/CT result from 967 patients entering the ED with respiratory symptoms were collected. Using these parameters, an easy-to-use point-based algorithm, called the corona-score, was developed to discriminate between patients that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and those testing negative. Computational sampling was used to optimize the corona-score. Validation of the model was performed using data from 592 patients. Results: The corona-score model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.91 in the validation population. Patients testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 showed a median corona-score of 3 vs. 11 (scale 0-14) in patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (p<0.001). Using cut-off values of 4 and 11 the model has a sensitivity and specificity of 96 and 95%, respectively. Conclusions: The corona-score effectively predicts SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR outcome based on routine parameters. This algorithm provides the means for medical professionals to rapidly evaluate SARS-CoV-2 infection status of patients presenting at the ED with respiratory symptoms.