Sensitivity evaluation of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR detection kits and strategy to reduce false negative

The early detection and differential diagnosis of respiratory infections increase the chances for successful control of COVID-19 disease. The nucleic acid RT-PCR test is regarded as the current standard for molecular diagnosis. However, the maximal specificity confirmation target ORF1ab gene is considered to be less sensitive than other targets in clinical application. In addition, recent evidence indicated that the initial missed diagnosis of asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 and discharged patients with “re-examination positive” might be due to low viral load, and the ability of rapid mutation of SARS-CoV-2 also increases the rate of false-negative results. Moreover, the mixed sample nucleic acid detection is helpful in seeking out the early community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 rapidly, but the detection kit needs ultra-high detection sensitivity. Herein, the lowest detection concentration of different nucleic acid detection kits was evaluated and compared to provide direct evidence for the selection of kits for mixed sample detection or make recommendations for the selection of validation kit, which is of great significance for the prevention and control of the current epidemic and the discharge criteria of low viral load patients.

Download Full-text

Sensitivity evaluation of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR detection kits and strategy to reduce false negative

10.21203/rs.3.rs-40414/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Yunying Zhou ◽

Fengyan Pei ◽

Li Wang ◽

Huailong Zhao ◽

Huanjie Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Viral Load ◽

Nucleic Acid ◽

Prevention And Control ◽

False Negative ◽

Infection Prevention And Control ◽

Nucleic Acid Detection ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Mixed Sample ◽

And Control ◽

Selection Of

Abstract Background: In absence of effective vaccines, infection prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2 through diagnostic testing and quarantine is critical. Early detection and differential diagnosis of respiratory infections increases the chances for successful control of COVID-19 disease. The nucleic acid RT-PCR test is regarded as the current standard for molecular diagnosis with high sensitivity. However, the highest specificity confirmation target ORF1ab gene is considered to be less sensitive than other targets in clinical application. In addition, a large amount of recent evidence indicates that the initial missed diagnosis of asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 and discharged patients with “re-examination positive” may be due to low viral load, and the ability of rapid mutation of SARS-CoV-2 also increases the rate of false negative results. Moreover, the current used mixed sample nucleic acid detection is helpful to seek out the early community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but the detection kit needs ultra-high detection sensitivity. Methods: From January to March 2020, 10 confirmed specimens of 2019-nCoV were recruited from three 2019-nCOV nucleic acid testing center. Five different amplification kits with three different primers and probes sources were selected. RT-PCR and continuous amplification of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs and environmental specimens were performed to validate the sensitivity of the commercially available Nucleic acid test kits. Results: The results showed that ORF1ab gene can still be reported as positive at 1:10 dilution and the N gene even at 1:40 dilution with kit-1 through the verification of multiple positive samples, While other kits have less sensitive. The results in the suspicious range of weakly positive nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs and environmental specimens could be reported as positive after another re-amplification.Conclusions: Through evaluate the sensitivity of different nucleic acid detection kits, this study provide direct evidence for the selection of kits for mixed sample detection or make recommendations for the selection of validation kit, which is of great significance for the prevention and control of the current epidemic and the discharge criteria of low viral load patients.

Download Full-text

Sensitivity evaluation of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR detection kits and strategy to reduce false negative

10.1101/2020.04.28.20083956 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Yunying Zhou ◽

Fengyan Pei ◽

Li Wang ◽

Huailong Zhao ◽

Huanjie Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Viral Load ◽

Nucleic Acid ◽

Prevention And Control ◽

False Negative ◽

Infection Prevention And Control ◽

Nucleic Acid Detection ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Current Standard ◽

Asymptomatic Patients ◽

And Control

ABSTRACTAn ongoing outbreak of pneumonia associated with SARS-CoV-2 has now been confirmed globally. In absence of effective vaccines, infection prevention and control through diagnostic testing and quarantine is critical. Early detection and differential diagnosis of respiratory infections increases the chances for successful control of COVID-19 disease. The nucleic acid RT-PCR test is regarded as the current standard for molecular diagnosis with high sensitivity. However, the highest specificity confirmation target ORF1ab gene is considered to be less sensitive than other targets in clinical application. In addition, a large amount of recent evidence indicates that the initial missed diagnosis of asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 and discharged patients with “re-examination positive” may be due to low viral load, and the ability of rapid mutation of coronavirus also increases the rate of false negative results. We aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of different nucleic acid detection kits so as to make recommendations for the selection of validation kit, and amplify the suspicious result to be reportable positive by means of simple continuous amplification, which is of great significance for the prevention and control of the current epidemic and the discharge criteria of low viral load patients.

Download Full-text

SARS-CoV-2 detection using digital PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment monitoring and criteria for discharge

10.1101/2020.03.24.20042689 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Renfei Lu ◽

Jian Wang ◽

Min Li ◽

Yaqi Wang ◽

Jia Dong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Viral Load ◽

Limit Of Detection ◽

False Negative ◽

Digital Pcr ◽

Detection Sensitivity ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Pharyngeal Swab ◽

Clinical Specimens ◽

Positive Results ◽

Negative Detection

SummaryBackgroundSARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection by RT-PCR is one of the criteria approved by China FDA for diagnosis of COVID-19. However, inaccurate test results (for example, high false negative rate and some false positive rate) were reported in both China and US CDC using RT-PCR method. Inaccurate results are caused by inadequate detection sensitivity of RT-PCR, low viral load in some patients, difficulty to collect samples from COVID-19 patients, insufficient sample loading during RT-PCR tests, and RNA degradation during sample handling process. False negative detection could subject patients to multiple tests before diagnosis can be made, which burdens health care system. Delayed diagnosis could cause infected patients to miss the best treatment time window. False negative detection could also lead to prematurely releasing infected patients who still carry residual SARS-CoV-2 virus. In this case, these patients could infect many others. A high sensitivity RNA detection method to resolve the existing issues of RT-PCR is in need for more accurate COVID-19 diagnosis.MethodsDigital PCR (dPCR) instrument DropX-2000 and assay kits were used to detect SARS-CoV-2 from 108 clinical specimens from 36 patients including pharyngeal swab, stool and blood from different days during hospitalization. Double-blinded experiment data of 108 clinical specimens by dPCR methods were compared with results from officially approved RT-PCR assay. A total of 109 samples including 108 clinical specimens and 1 negative control sample were tested in this study. All of 109 samples, 26 were from 21patients reported as positive by officially approved clinical RT-PCR detection in local CDC and then hospitalized in Nantong Third Hospital. Among the 109 samples, dPCR detected 30 positive samples on ORFA1ab gene, 47 samples with N gene positive, and 30 samples with double positive on ORFA1ab and N genes.ResultsThe lower limit of detection of the optimize dPCR is at least 10-fold lower than that of RT-PCR. The overall accuracy of dPCR for clinical detection is 96.3%. 4 out 4 of (100 %) negative pharyngeal swab samples checked by RT-PCR were positive judged by dPCR based on the follow-up investigation. 2 of 2 samples in the RT-PCR grey area (Ct value > 37) were confirmed by dPCR with positive results. 1 patient being tested positive by RT-PCR was confirmed to be negative by dPCR. The dPCR results show clear viral loading decrease in 12 patients as treatment proceed, which can be a useful tool for monitoring COVID-19 treatment.ConclusionsDigital PCR shows improved lower limit of detection, sensitivity and accuracy, enabling COVID-19 detection with less false negative and false positive results comparing with RT-PCR, especially for the tests with low viral load specimens. We showed evidences that dPCR is powerful in detecting asymptomatic patients and suspected patients. Digital PCR is capable of checking the negative results caused by insufficient sample loading by quantifying internal reference gene from human RNA in the PCR reactions. Multi-channel fluorescence dPCR system (FAM/HEX/CY5/ROX) is able to detect more target genes in a single multiplex assay, providing quantitative count of viral load in specimens, which is a powerful tool for monitoring COVID-19 treatment.

Download Full-text

A case of SARS-CoV-2 carrier for 32 days with several times false negative nucleic acid tests

10.1101/2020.03.31.20045401 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Lingjie Song ◽

Guibao Xiao ◽

Xianqin Zhang ◽

Zhan Gao ◽

Shixia Sun ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Nucleic Acid ◽

Clinical Symptoms ◽

Early Stage ◽

Antiviral Treatment ◽

Immune Therapy ◽

False Negative ◽

Clinical Manifestations ◽

Nucleic Acid Detection ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Nucleic Acid Tests

AbstractIn 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was first discovered in Wuhan, Hubei, China, causing severe respiratory disease in humans, and has been identified as a public health emergency of international concern. With the spread of the virus, there are more and more false negative cases of RT-PCR nucleic acid detection in the early stage of potential infection. In this paper, we collected the epidemiological history, clinical manifestations, outcomes, laboratory results and images of a SARS-CoV-2 carrier with no significant past medical history. The patient was quarantined because of her colleague had been diagnosed. After the onset of clinical symptoms, chest CT results showed patchy ground-glass opacity (GGO) in her lungs, but it took a total of nine nucleic acid tests to confirm the diagnosis, among which the first eight RT-PCR results were negative or single-target positive. In addition to coughing up phlegm during her stay in the hospital, she did not develop chills, fever, abdominal pain, diarrhea and other clinical symptoms. Since initial antiviral treatment, the lung lesions were absorbed. But the sputum nucleic acid test was still positive. In combination with antiviral and immune therapy, the patient tested negative for the virus. Notably, SARS-CoV-2 was detected only in the lower respiratory tract samples (sputum) throughout the diagnosis and treatment period. This is a confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 infection with common symptoms, and her diagnosis has undergone multiple false negatives, suggesting that it is difficult to identify certain carriers of the virus and that such patients may also increase the spread of the SARS-CoV-2.

Download Full-text

Estimation of conjunctival swab and nasopharyngeal swab specimens for viral nucleic acid detection in Coronavirus disease 2019 patients to compare the viral load

Latin American Journal of Ophthalmology ◽

10.25259/lajo_1_2021 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 2

Author(s):

Jaya Kaushik ◽

Vikas Marwah ◽

Ankita Singh ◽

Y. V. K. Chaitanya ◽

Rajeev Mohan Gupta ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Viral Load ◽

Nucleic Acid ◽

Statistical Correlation ◽

Nucleic Acid Detection ◽

Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Viral Nucleic Acid ◽

Ocular Manifestations ◽

Conjunctival Swab ◽

Polymerase Chain

Objectives: The purpose of the study was to detect the presence of viral ribonucleic acid of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in conjunctival swab along with nasopharyngeal swab specimens of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Material and Methods: Thirty COVID-19 patients with at least one sample positive for real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab with the presence or absence of ocular manifestations were included in the study. The conjunctival swab along with nasopharyngeal swab of each patient was collected and sent to microbiology lab for evaluation and analysis of viral nucleic acid to assess the viral load. Results: Out of 30 patients, 21 patients (70%) were males and the remaining nine patients (30%) were females. Mean age of the patients in the study was 44.80 ± 15.37 years. One patient had conjunctivitis as ocular manifestation. Two (6.7%) out of 30 patients were positive for RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 in the conjunctival swab. There was no statistical correlation between nasopharyngeal swab and conjunctival swab positivity using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.010; P = 0.995 (>0.05). Conclusion: The results of the study revealed that SARS-CoV-2 can also be detected in conjunctival swabs of confirmed cases of COVID-19 patients. Although, in comparison to nasopharyngeal and throat swabs the rate of detection of SARS-CoV-2 in conjunctival swabs is relatively less, still diligent care and precautions should be practiced during the ophthalmic evaluation of COVID-19 patients.

Download Full-text

ddPCR: a more sensitive and accurate tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection in low viral load specimens

10.1101/2020.02.29.20029439 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Tao Suo ◽

Xinjin Liu ◽

Jiangpeng Feng ◽

Ming Guo ◽

Wenjia Hu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Viral Load ◽

Limit Of Detection ◽

False Negative ◽

Digital Pcr ◽

Clinical Samples ◽

Double Blind Study ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Current Standard ◽

Double Blind ◽

Sensitivity Specificity

AbstractReal time fluorescent quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) is widely used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, due to the low viral load in patient throats and the limitations of RT-PCR, significant numbers of false negative reports are inevitable, which results in failure to timely diagnose, early treat, cut off transmission, and assess discharge criteria. To improve this situation, an optimized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used for detection of SARS-CoV-2, which showed that the limit of detection of ddPCR is significantly lower than that of RT-PCR. We further explored the feasibility of ddPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid from 77 clinical throat swab samples, including 63 suspected outpatients with fever and 14 supposed convalescents who were about to discharge after treatment, and compared with RT-PCR in terms of the diagnostic accuracy. In this double-blind study, we tested, surveyed subsequently and statistically analyzed 77 clinical samples. According to our study, 26 samples from COVID-19 patients with RT-PCR negative were detected as positive by ddPCR. No FPRs of RT-PCR and ddPCR were observed. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, NLR and accuracy were improved from 40% (95% CI: 27–55%), 100% (95% CI: 54–100%), 100%, 16% (95% CI: 13–19%), 0.6 (95% CI: 0.48–0.75) and 47% (95% CI: 33–60%) for RT-PCR to 94% (95% CI: 83–99%), 100% (95% CI: 48–100%), 100%, 63% (95% CI: 36–83%), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02–0.18) and 95% (95% CI: 84–99%) for ddPCR, respectively. Moreover, 14 (42.9 %) convalescents still carry detectable SARS-CoV-2 after discharge. Overall, ddPCR shows superiority for clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 to reduce the false negative reports, which could be a powerful complement to the current standard RT-PCR. It also suggests that the current clinical practice that the convalescent after discharge continues to be quarantined for at least 2 weeks is completely necessary which can prevent potential viral transmission.

Download Full-text

One-step nested RT-PCR for COVID-19 detection: A flexible, locally developed test for SARS-CoV2 nucleic acid detection

The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries ◽

10.3855/jidc.12726 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 14 (07) ◽

pp. 679-684 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Carmen Meza-Robles ◽

Carlos E Barajas-Saucedo ◽

Daniel Tiburcio-Jimenez ◽

Karen A Mokay-Ramírez ◽

Valery Melnikov ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Nucleic Acid ◽

Real Time ◽

Positive Control ◽

Nucleic Acid Detection ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Current Standard ◽

One Step ◽

Species Specific ◽

Bat Coronavirus ◽

Nucleotide Region

Introduction: Due to the coronavirus pandemic, identifying the infected individuals has become key to limiting its spread. Virus nucleic acid real-time RT-PCR testing has become the current standard diagnostic method but high demand could lead to shortages. Therefore, we propose a detection strategy using a one-step nested RT-PCR. Methodology: The nucleotide region in the ORF1ab gene that has the greatest differences between the human coronavirus and the bat coronavirus was selected. Primers were designed after that sequence. All diagnostic primers are species-specific since the 3´ end of the sequence differs from that of other species. A primer set also creates a synthetic positive control. Amplified products were seen in a 2.5% agarose gel, as well as in an SYBR Green-Based Real-Time RT-PCR. Results: Amplification was achieved for the positive control and specific regions in both techniques. Conclusions: This new technique is flexible and easy to implement. It does not require a real-time thermocycler and can be interpreted in agarose gels, as well as adapted to quantify the viral genome. It has the advantage that if the coronavirus mutates in one of the key amplification nucleotides, at least one pair can still amplify, thanks to the four diagnostic primers.

Download Full-text

Viral Dynamics and Real-Time RT-PCR Ct Values Correlation with Disease Severity in COVID-19

Diagnostics ◽

10.3390/diagnostics11061091 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. 1091

Author(s):

Ali A. Rabaan ◽

Raghavendra Tirupathi ◽

Anupam A Sule ◽

Jehad Aldali ◽

Abbas Al Mutair ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Viral Load ◽

Real Time ◽

Disease Severity ◽

False Negative ◽

Influential Factors ◽

Confirmatory Test ◽

Acid Extraction ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Viral Kinetics ◽

Ct Value

Real-time RT-PCR is considered the gold standard confirmatory test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, many scientists disagree, and it is essential to understand that several factors and variables can cause a false-negative test. In this context, cycle threshold (Ct) values are being utilized to diagnose or predict SARS-CoV-2 infection. This practice has a significant clinical utility as Ct values can be correlated with the viral load. In addition, Ct values have a strong correlation with multiple haematological and biochemical markers. However, it is essential to consider that Ct values might be affected by pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytical variables such as collection technique, specimen type, sampling time, viral kinetics, transport and storage conditions, nucleic acid extraction, viral RNA load, primer designing, real-time PCR efficiency, and Ct value determination method. Therefore, understanding the interpretation of Ct values and other influential factors could play a crucial role in interpreting viral load and disease severity. In several clinical studies consisting of small or large sample sizes, several discrepancies exist regarding a significant positive correlation between the Ct value and disease severity in COVID-19. In this context, a revised review of the literature has been conducted to fill the knowledge gaps regarding the correlations between Ct values and severity/fatality rates of patients with COVID-19. Various databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched up to April 2021 by using keywords including “RT-PCR or viral load”, “SARS-CoV-2 and RT-PCR”, “Ct value and viral load”, “Ct value or COVID-19”. Research articles were extracted and selected independently by the authors and included in the present review based on their relevance to the study. The current narrative review explores the correlation of Ct values with mortality, disease progression, severity, and infectivity. We also discuss the factors that can affect these values, such as collection technique, type of swab, sampling method, etc.

Download Full-text

Performance of Unobserved Self-Collected Nasal Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR Utilizing a Remote Specimen Collection Strategy

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofab039 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ron M Kagan ◽

Amy A Rogers ◽

Gwynngelle A Borillo ◽

Nigel J Clarke ◽

Elizabeth M Marlowe

Keyword(s):

Return To Work ◽

Screening Program ◽

False Negative ◽

N Gene ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Pooled Testing ◽

Specimen Collection ◽

Asymptomatic Patients ◽

Nasal Swabs ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background The use of a remote specimen collection strategy employing a kit designed for unobserved self-collection for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR can decrease the use of PPE and exposure risk. To assess the impact of unobserved specimen self-collection on test performance, we examined results from a SARS-CoV-2 qualitative RT-PCR test for self-collected specimens from participants in a return-to-work screening program and assessed the impact of a pooled testing strategy in this cohort. Methods Self-collected anterior nasal swabs from employee return to work programs were tested using the Quest Diagnostics SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR EUA. The Ct values for the N1 and N3 N-gene targets and a human RNase P (RP) gene control target were tabulated. For comparison, we utilized Ct values from a cohort of HCP-collected specimens from patients with and without COVID-19 symptoms. Results Among 47,923 participants, 1.8% were positive. RP failed to amplify for 13/115,435 (0.011%) specimens. The median (IQR) Cts were 32.7 (25.0-35.7) for N1 and 31.3 (23.8-34.2) for N3. Median Ct values in the self-collected cohort were significantly higher than those of symptomatic, but not asymptomatic patients. Based on Ct values, pooled testing with 4 specimens would have yielded inconclusive results in 67/1,268 (5.2%) specimens but only a single false-negative result. Conclusions Unobserved self-collection of nasal swabs provides adequate sampling for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. These findings alleviate concerns of increased false negatives in this context. Specimen pooling could be used for this population as the likelihood of false negative results is very low due when using a sensitive, dual-target methodology.

Download Full-text

False Negative Mitigation in Group Testing for COVID-19 Screening

Frontiers in Medicine ◽

10.3389/fmed.2021.661277 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

Author(s):

Amir Reza Alizad Rahvar ◽

Safar Vafadar ◽

Mehdi Totonchi ◽

Mehdi Sadeghi

Keyword(s):

Viral Load ◽

False Negative ◽

Group Testing ◽

False Negative Rate ◽

Screening Strategy ◽

Web Interface ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Promising Candidate ◽

Testing Method ◽

High False Negative Rate

After lifting the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and opening businesses, screening is essential to prevent the spread of the virus. Group testing could be a promising candidate for screening to save time and resources. However, due to the high false-negative rate (FNR) of the RT-PCR diagnostic test, we should be cautious about using group testing because a group's false-negative result identifies all the individuals in a group as uninfected. Repeating the test is the best solution to reduce the FNR, and repeats should be integrated with the group-testing method to increase the sensitivity of the test. The simplest way is to replicate the test twice for each group (the 2Rgt method). In this paper, we present a new method for group testing (the groupMix method), which integrates two repeats in the test. Then we introduce the 2-stage sequential version of both the groupMix and the 2Rgt methods. We compare these methods analytically regarding the sensitivity and the average number of tests. The tradeoff between the sensitivity and the average number of tests should be considered when choosing the best method for the screening strategy. We applied the groupMix method to screening 263 people and identified 2 infected individuals by performing 98 tests. This method achieved a 63% saving in the number of tests compared to individual testing. Our experimental results show that in COVID-19 screening, the viral load can be low, and the group size should not be more than 6; otherwise, the FNR increases significantly. A web interface of the groupMix method is publicly available for laboratories to implement this method.

Download Full-text