Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Elisa Kortela
Maarit J Ahava
Suvi T. Jokiranta
Anna But
Hanna Jarva
Maija Lappalainen
Pia Jokela
Anna Lindahl
Laura Mannonen
Annemarjut J. Jääskeläinen
Olli Vapalahti
Eeva Ruotsalainen
Tarja Sironen
Satu Kurkela
Hannimari Kallio-Kokko
Asko Järvinen
Eliisa Kekäläinen
Hanna-Riikka Kreivi
Vesa Kirjavainen
Anu Jääskeläinen
Raisa Loginov
HUSLAB
HUS Inflammation Center
University of Helsinki
Clinicum
HUS Diagnostic Center
Medicum
TRIMM - Translational Immunology Research Program
Department of Bacteriology and Immunology
Department of Public Health
HUS Heart and Lung Center
Viral Zoonosis Research Unit
Department of Virology
Department of Medicine
Faculty Common Matters (Faculty of Biology and Environmental Sciences)
Mirja Puolakkainen / Principal Investigator
HUS Internal Medicine and Rehabilitation
Helsinki One Health (HOH)
Emerging Infections Research Group
Veterinary Biosciences
Olli Pekka Vapalahti / Principal Investigator
Veterinary Microbiology and Epidemiology
Research Programs Unit
Source :
PLoS ONE, PLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 5, p e0251661 (2021)
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

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 PointsQuestionWhat 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.

Details

ISSN :
19326203
Volume :
16
Issue :
5
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
PloS one
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....2552d1255f605da8bd2281ac0827bcd1