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.

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

Rapid sample-to-answer tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 are emerging and data on their relative performance is urgently needed. We evaluated the analytical performance of two rapid nucleic acid tests, Cepheid Xpert(R) Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Mobidiag Novodiag(R) Covid-19, in comparison to a combination reference of three large-scale PCR tests. Moreover, utility of the Novodiag(R) test in tertiary care emergency departments was assessed. In the preliminary evaluation, analysis of 90 respiratory samples resulted in 100% specificity and sensitivity for Xpert(R), whereas analysis of 107 samples resulted in 93.4% sensitivity and 100% specificity for Novodiag(R). Rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing with Novodiag(R) 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(R) and reference tests: 355/361 of the specimens were negative with both methods, and 1/361 was positive in Novodiag(R) and negative by the reference method. Of the 5 remaining specimens, two were negative with Novodiag(R), but positive with the reference method with late Ct values. On average, a test result using Novodiag(R) was available nearly 8 hours earlier than that obtained with the large-scale PCR tests. 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.

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.