Cargando…

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 retr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kortela, Elisa, Kirjavainen, Vesa, Ahava, Maarit J., Jokiranta, Suvi T., But, Anna, Lindahl, Anna, Jääskeläinen, Anu E., Jääskeläinen, Annemarjut J., Järvinen, Asko, Jokela, Pia, Kallio-Kokko, Hannimari, Loginov, Raisa, Mannonen, Laura, Ruotsalainen, Eeva, Sironen, Tarja, Vapalahti, Olli, Lappalainen, Maija, Kreivi, Hanna-Riikka, Jarva, Hanna, Kurkela, Satu, Kekäläinen, Eliisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8139477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34019562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251661
Descripción
Sumario: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.