Cargando…

Possibility of underestimation of COVID-19 prevalence by PCR and serological tests

BACKGROUND: Exact comprehension of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential for the preventive measures. In the clinical settings, however, patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 may not be fully detected by PCR. In the long-term prevalence study, cut-off of IgG assay may not be appropriate du...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ota, Shinichiro, Sugawa, Satoshi, Suematsu, Etsuko, Shinoda, Masahiro, Izumizaki, Masahiko, Shinkai, Masaharu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taiwan Society of Microbiology. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8479325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34642099
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2021.09.005
_version_ 1784576230391021568
author Ota, Shinichiro
Sugawa, Satoshi
Suematsu, Etsuko
Shinoda, Masahiro
Izumizaki, Masahiko
Shinkai, Masaharu
author_facet Ota, Shinichiro
Sugawa, Satoshi
Suematsu, Etsuko
Shinoda, Masahiro
Izumizaki, Masahiko
Shinkai, Masaharu
author_sort Ota, Shinichiro
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Exact comprehension of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential for the preventive measures. In the clinical settings, however, patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 may not be fully detected by PCR. In the long-term prevalence study, cut-off of IgG assay may not be appropriate due to waning IgG titer. METHODS: 24 PCR-negative subjects suspected of COVID-19 were categorized into cohorts termed “presumed COVID-19 positive” and “presumed COVID-19 negative” by chest CT images. IgG against nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 (IgG (N)) and IgG against receptor biding domain of SARS-CoV-2 (IgG (RBD)) were measured in sera of the subjects and the concordance with the cohort categorization was assessed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: Area under the curves (AUC's) by the ROC analyses with the 24 subjects were 0.982 with IgG (N) and 0.854 with IgG (RBD). Even when we excluded the subjects whose initial PCR was performed after five days from symptom onset, the AUC's were 0.967 with IgG (N) and 0.800 with IgG (RBD). The ROC analysis indicated 0.2 S/C as the optimum cut-off forIgG (N). CONCLUSION: Both IgG (N) and IgG (RBD) titers were significantly elevated in subjects whose PCR never showed positive but suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which indicated the necessity of serological tests in complementing the shortcomings of PCR. For a long-term prevalence study, a cut-off lower than the one used in the ongoing infection phase (e.g. 0.2 S/C vs. 1.4 S/C) was indicated to be more appropriate for IgG (N).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8479325
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Taiwan Society of Microbiology. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84793252021-09-29 Possibility of underestimation of COVID-19 prevalence by PCR and serological tests Ota, Shinichiro Sugawa, Satoshi Suematsu, Etsuko Shinoda, Masahiro Izumizaki, Masahiko Shinkai, Masaharu J Microbiol Immunol Infect Original Article BACKGROUND: Exact comprehension of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential for the preventive measures. In the clinical settings, however, patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 may not be fully detected by PCR. In the long-term prevalence study, cut-off of IgG assay may not be appropriate due to waning IgG titer. METHODS: 24 PCR-negative subjects suspected of COVID-19 were categorized into cohorts termed “presumed COVID-19 positive” and “presumed COVID-19 negative” by chest CT images. IgG against nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 (IgG (N)) and IgG against receptor biding domain of SARS-CoV-2 (IgG (RBD)) were measured in sera of the subjects and the concordance with the cohort categorization was assessed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses. RESULTS: Area under the curves (AUC's) by the ROC analyses with the 24 subjects were 0.982 with IgG (N) and 0.854 with IgG (RBD). Even when we excluded the subjects whose initial PCR was performed after five days from symptom onset, the AUC's were 0.967 with IgG (N) and 0.800 with IgG (RBD). The ROC analysis indicated 0.2 S/C as the optimum cut-off forIgG (N). CONCLUSION: Both IgG (N) and IgG (RBD) titers were significantly elevated in subjects whose PCR never showed positive but suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which indicated the necessity of serological tests in complementing the shortcomings of PCR. For a long-term prevalence study, a cut-off lower than the one used in the ongoing infection phase (e.g. 0.2 S/C vs. 1.4 S/C) was indicated to be more appropriate for IgG (N). Taiwan Society of Microbiology. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. 2022-12 2021-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8479325/ /pubmed/34642099 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2021.09.005 Text en © 2021 Taiwan Society of Microbiology. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Original Article
Ota, Shinichiro
Sugawa, Satoshi
Suematsu, Etsuko
Shinoda, Masahiro
Izumizaki, Masahiko
Shinkai, Masaharu
Possibility of underestimation of COVID-19 prevalence by PCR and serological tests
title Possibility of underestimation of COVID-19 prevalence by PCR and serological tests
title_full Possibility of underestimation of COVID-19 prevalence by PCR and serological tests
title_fullStr Possibility of underestimation of COVID-19 prevalence by PCR and serological tests
title_full_unstemmed Possibility of underestimation of COVID-19 prevalence by PCR and serological tests
title_short Possibility of underestimation of COVID-19 prevalence by PCR and serological tests
title_sort possibility of underestimation of covid-19 prevalence by pcr and serological tests
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8479325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34642099
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2021.09.005
work_keys_str_mv AT otashinichiro possibilityofunderestimationofcovid19prevalencebypcrandserologicaltests
AT sugawasatoshi possibilityofunderestimationofcovid19prevalencebypcrandserologicaltests
AT suematsuetsuko possibilityofunderestimationofcovid19prevalencebypcrandserologicaltests
AT shinodamasahiro possibilityofunderestimationofcovid19prevalencebypcrandserologicaltests
AT izumizakimasahiko possibilityofunderestimationofcovid19prevalencebypcrandserologicaltests
AT shinkaimasaharu possibilityofunderestimationofcovid19prevalencebypcrandserologicaltests