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

ImportanceUnderstanding the false negative rates of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is pivotal for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic and it has practical implications for patient management in healthcare facilities. ObjectiveTo determine the real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. DesignA retrospective study on case series from 4 March - 15 April 2020. SettingA population-based study conducted in primary and tertiary care in the Helsinki Capital Region, Finland. ParticipantsAdults who were clinically suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection and underwent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, and who had sufficient data for grading of clinical suspicion of COVID-19 in their medical records were eligible. All 1,194 inpatients admitted to COVID-19 cohort wards during the study period were included. The outpatient cohort of 1,814 individuals was sampled from epidemiological line lists by systematic quasi-random sampling. Altogether 83 eligible outpatients (4.6%) and 3 inpatients (0.3%) were excluded due to insufficient data for grading of clinical suspicion. ExposuresHigh clinical suspicion for COVID-19 was used as the reference standard for the RT-PCR test. Patients were considered to have high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 if the physician in charge recorded the suspicion on clinical grounds, or the patient fulfilled specifically defined clinical and exposure criteria. Main measuresSensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR by using manually curated clinical characteristics as the gold standard. ResultsThe study population included 1,814 outpatients (mean [SD] age, 45.4 [17.2] years; 69.1% women) and 1,194 inpatients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [18.3] years; 45.2% women). The sensitivity (95% CI) for laboratory confirmed cases, i.e. repeatedly tested patients were as follows: 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 following sensitivity values (95% CI) were observed: 67.5% (62.9-71.9%) inpatients; 34.9% (31.4-38.5%) outpatients; 47.3% (44.4-50.3%) all. Conclusions and relevanceThe 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. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSWhat is the clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test? FindingsIn this population-based retrospective study on medical records of 1,814 outpatients and 1,194 inpatients, the clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR was 47.3-89.9%. MeaningThe 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 SARS-CoV-2 RNA

Mitigation of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic requires reliable and accessible laboratory diagnostic services. We evaluated the performance of one LDT and two commercial tests, cobas(R) SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) and Amplidiag(R) COVID-19 (Mobidiag), for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in respiratory specimens. 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 (PPA) was highest for cobas(R) test (100%), followed by Amplidiag(R) test and the LDT (98.9%). The negative percent agreement (NPA) was lowest for cobas(R) test (89.4%), followed by Amplidiag(R) test (98.8%) and the highest value was obtained for LDT (100%). The dilution series conducted for specimens, however, suggests significantly higher sensitivity for the cobas(R) assay in comparison with the other two assays and the low NPA value may be due to the same reason. In general, all tested assays performed adequately. Both the time from sample to result and hands-on time per sample were shortest for cobas(R) test. Clinical laboratories need to be prepared for uninterrupted high-throughput testing during the coming months in mitigation of the pandemic. To secure that, it is of critical importance for clinical laboratories to maintain several simultaneous platforms in their SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing.

Laboratory-based surveillance of COVID-19 in the Greater Helsinki area, Finland, February-June 2020

Laboratory registry data (80,791 specimens, 70,517 individuals) was used to characterise age- and sex-specific SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR sampling frequency and positivity rate, and laboratory capacity building in Greater Helsinki, Finland during February-June 2020. While the number of positive cases was similar in males and females, the positivity rate was significantly higher in males. The highest incidence/100,000 was observed in those aged [≥]80 years. The proportion of young adults in positive cases increased in late May 2020.

Systems-level immunomonitoring from acute to recovery phase of severe COVID-19

The immune response to SARS-CoV2 is under intense investigation, but not fully understood att this moment. Severe disease is characterized by vigorous inflammatory responses in the lung, often with a sudden onset after 5-7 days of stable disease. Efforts to modulate this hyperinflammation and the associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, rely on the unraveling of the immune cell interactions and cytokines that drive such responses. Systems-level analyses are required to simultaneously capture all immune cell populations and the many protein mediators by which cells communicate. Since every patient analyzed will be captured at different stages of his or her infection, longitudinal monitoring of the immune response is critical. Here we report on a systems-level blood immunomonitoring study of 39 adult patients, hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and followed with up to 14 blood samples from acute to recovery phases of the disease. We describe an IFN{gamma} - Eosinophil axis activated prior to lung hyperinflammation and changes in cell-cell coregulation during different stages of the disease. We also map an immune trajectory during recovery that is shared among patients with severe COVID-19. HIGHLIGHTSSystems-level immunomonitoring from acute to recovery in severe COVID-19 An IFN{gamma} - Eosinophil axis involved in lung hyperinflammation Cell-cell coregulation differ during four disease stages Basophils and hyperinflammation modulate humoral responses A shared trajectory of immunological recovery in severe COVID-19

Performance of six SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in comparison with microneutralisation

There is an urgent need for reliable high-throughput serological assays for the management of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Preferably, the performance of serological tests for a novel virus should be determined with clinical specimens against a gold standard, i.e. virus neutralisation. We evaluated specificity and sensitivity of six commercial immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA and IgM antibodies, including four automated assays [Abbott SARS-COV-2 IgG (CE marked), Diasorin Liaison(R) SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (research use only), and Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA (CE marked)], and two rapid lateral flow (immunocromatographic) tests [Acro Biotech 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM (CE marked) and Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM (CE marked)] in comparison with a microneutralisation test (MNT). Two specimen panels from serum samples sent to Helsinki University Hospital Laboratory (HUSLAB) were compiled: the patient panel included sera from PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients, and the negative panel included sera sent for screening of autoimmune diseases and respiratory virus antibodies in 2018 and 2019. The MNT was carried out for all COVID-19 samples (70 serum samples, 62 individuals) and for 53 samples from the negative panel. Forty-one out of 62 COVID-19 patients showed neutralising antibodies with median of 11 days (range 3-51) after onset of symptoms. The specificity and sensitivity values of the commercial tests against MNT, respectively, were as follows: 95.1%/80.5% (Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG), 94.9%/43.8% (Diasorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 IgG), 68.3%/87.8% (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgA), 86.6%/70.7% (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG), 74.4%/56.1% (Acro 2019-nCoV IgG), 69.5%/46.3% (Acro 2019-nCoV IgM), 97.5%/71.9% (Xiamen Biotime SARS-CoV-2 IgG), and 88.8%/81.3% (Xiamen Biotime SARSCoV-2 IgM). This study shows variable performance values. Laboratories should carefully consider their testing process, such as a two-tier approach, in order to optimize the overall performance of SARS-CoV-2 serodiagnostics.