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

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.

Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms and a Laboratory-Developed Test for Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA.

Mitigation of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires reliable and accessible laboratory diagnostic services. In this study, the performance of one laboratory-developed test (LDT) and two commercial tests, cobas SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) and Amplidiag COVID-19 (Mobidiag), were evaluated for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in respiratory specimens. A total of 183 specimens collected from suspected COVID-19 patients were studied with all three methods to compare their performance. In relation to the reference standard, which was established as the result obtained by two of the three studied methods, the positive percent agreement was highest for the cobas test (100%), followed by the Amplidiag test and the LDT (98.9%). The negative percent agreement was lowest for the cobas test (89.4%), followed by the Amplidiag test (98.8%), and the highest value was obtained for the LDT (100%). The dilution series of positive specimens, however, suggests significantly higher sensitivity for the cobas assay in comparison with the other two assays, and the low negative percent agreement value may be due to the same reason. In general, all tested assays performed adequately. Clinical laboratories need to be prepared for uninterrupted high-throughput testing during the coming months to mitigate the pandemic. To ensure no interruption, it is critical that clinical laboratories maintain several simultaneous platforms in their SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing.

SARS-CoV-2 sample-to-answer nucleic acid testing in a tertiary care emergency department: evaluation and utility.

BACKGROUND: Rapid sample-to-answer tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 are emerging and data on their relative performance is urgently needed. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the analytical performance of two rapid nucleic acid tests, Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Mobidiag Novodiag® Covid-19, in comparison to a combination reference of three large-scale PCR tests. Moreover, utility of the Novodiag® test in tertiary care emergency departments was assessed. RESULTS: In the preliminary evaluation, analysis of 90 respiratory samples resulted in 100% specificity and sensitivity for Xpert®, whereas analysis of 107 samples resulted in 93.4% sensitivity and 100% specificity for Novodiag®. Rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing with Novodiag® was made available for four tertiary care emergency departments in Helsinki, Finland between 18 and 31 May, coinciding with a rapidly declining epidemic phase. Altogether 361 respiratory specimens, together with relevant clinical data, were analyzed with Novodiag® and reference tests: 355/361 of the specimens were negative with both methods, and 1/361 was positive in Novodiag® and negative by the reference method. Of the 5 remaining specimens, two were negative with Novodiag®, but positive with the reference method with late Ct values. On average, a test result using Novodiag® was available nearly 8 hours earlier than that obtained with the large-scale PCR tests. CONCLUSIONS: While the performance of novel sample-to-answer PCR tests need to be carefully evaluated, they may provide timely and reliable results in detection of SARS-CoV-2 and thus facilitate patient management including effective cohorting.

Evaluation of commercial and automated SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs using coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patient samples.

Antibody-screening methods to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) need to be validated. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs in conjunction with the EUROLabworkstation (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). Overall specificities were 91.9% and 73.0% for IgG and IgA ELISAs, respectively. Of 39 coronavirus disease patients, 13 were IgG and IgA positive and 11 IgA alone at sampling. IgGs and IgAs were respectively detected at a median of 12 and 11 days after symptom onset.

Serological and molecular findings during SARS-CoV-2 infection: the first case study in Finland, January to February 2020.

The first case of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Finland was confirmed on 29 January 2020. No secondary cases were detected. We describe the clinical picture and laboratory findings 3-23 days since the first symptoms. The SARS-CoV-2/Finland/1/2020 virus strain was isolated, the genome showing a single nucleotide substitution to the reference strain from Wuhan. Neutralising antibody response appeared within 9 days along with specific IgM and IgG response, targeting particularly nucleocapsid and spike proteins.