Cet article est une Preprint
Les preprints sont des rapports de recherche préliminaires qui n'ont pas été certifiés par l’évaluation par les pairs. Ils ne devraient pas être considérés comme guidant la pratique clinique ou les comportements liés à la santé et ne devraient pas être rapportés dans les médias comme des informations établies.
Les preprints publiées en ligne permettent aux auteurs de recevoir des commentaires rapidement, et toute la communauté scientifique peut évaluer indépendamment le travail et répondre en conséquence. Ces commentaires sont publiés avec les preprints que quiconque peut lire et servir d’évaluation post-publication.
Insights into the practical effectiveness of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 from serologic data, a cohort study (preprint)
medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint
Dans Anglais
| medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.09.01.20182469
ABSTRACT
Background:
Virologic detection of SARS-CoV-2 through Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) has limitations for surveillance. Serologic tests can be an important complementary approach.Objective:
Assess the practical performance of RT-PCR based surveillance protocols, and the extent of undetected SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Shenzhen, China.Design:
Cohort study nested in a public health response.Setting:
Shenzhen, China; January-May 2020.Participants:
880 PCR-negative close-contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases and 400 residents without known exposure (main analysis). Fifty-seven PCR-positive case contacts (timing analysis). Measurements Virological testing by RT-PCR. Measurement of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in PCR-negative contacts 2-15 weeks after initial testing using total Ab ELISA. Rates of undetected infection, performance of RT-PCR over the course of infection, and characteristics of seropositive but PCR-negative individuals were assessed.Results:
The adjusted seropositivity rate for total Ab among 880 PCR-negative close-contacts was 4.1% (95%CI, 2.9% to 5.7%), significantly higher than among residents without known exposure to cases (0.0%, 95%CI, 0.0% to 1.0%). PCR-positive cases were 8.0 times (RR; 95% CI, 5.3 to 12.7) more likely to report symptoms than the PCR-negative individuals who were seropositive, but otherwise similar. RT-PCR missed 36% (95%CI, 28% to 44%) of infected close-contacts, and false negative rates appear to be highly dependent on stage of infection.Limitations:
No serological data were available on PCR-positive cases. Sample size was limited, and only 20% of PCR-negative contacts met inclusion criteria.Conclusion:
Even rigorous RT-PCR testing protocols may miss a significant proportion of infections, perhaps in part due to difficulties timing testing of asymptomatics for optimal sensitivity. Surveillance and control protocols relying on RT-PCR were, nevertheless, able to contain community spread in Shenzhen.
Texte intégral:
Disponible
Collection:
Preprints
Base de données:
medRxiv
langue:
Anglais
Année:
2020
Type de document:
Preprint
Documents relatifs à ce sujet
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS