Dataset Information

Longitudinal Assessment of Diagnostic Test Performance Over the Course of Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Serial screening is critical for restricting spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by facilitating timely identification of infected individuals to interrupt transmission. Variation in sensitivity of different diagnostic tests at different stages of infection has not been well documented.

Methods

In a longitudinal study of 43 adults newly infected with SARS-CoV-2, all provided daily saliva and nasal swabs for quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), Quidel SARS Sofia antigen fluorescent immunoassay (FIA), and live virus culture.

Results

Both RT-qPCR and Quidel SARS Sofia antigen FIA peaked in sensitivity during the period in which live virus was detected in nasal swabs, but sensitivity of RT-qPCR tests rose more rapidly prior to this period. We also found that serial testing multiple times per week increases the sensitivity of antigen tests.

Conclusions

RT-qPCR tests are more effective than antigen tests at identifying infected individuals prior to or early during the infectious period and thus for minimizing forward transmission (given timely results reporting). All tests showed >98% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals if used at least every 3 days. Daily screening using antigen tests can achieve approximately 90% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals while they are viral culture positive.

SUBMITTER: Smith RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8448437 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Longitudinal Assessment of Diagnostic Test Performance Over the Course of Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Smith Rebecca L RL Gibson Laura L LL Martinez Pamela P PP Ke Ruian R Mirza Agha A Conte Madison M Gallagher Nicholas N Conte Abigail A Wang Leyi L Fredrickson Richard R Edmonson Darci C DC Baughman Melinda E ME Chiu Karen K KK Choi Hannah H Jensen Tor W TW Scardina Kevin R KR Bradley Shannon S Gloss Stacy L SL Reinhart Crystal C Yedetore Jagadeesh J Owens Alyssa N AN Broach John J Barton Bruce B Lazar Peter P Henness Darcy D Young Todd T Dunnett Alastair A Robinson Matthew L ML Mostafa Heba H HH Pekosz Andrew A Manabe Yukari C YC Heetderks William J WJ McManus David D DD Brooke Christopher B CB

The Journal of infectious diseases 20210901 6

<h4>Background</h4>Serial screening is critical for restricting spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by facilitating timely identification of infected individuals to interrupt transmission. Variation in sensitivity of different diagnostic tests at different stages of infection has not been well documented.<h4>Methods</h4>In a longitudinal study of 43 adults newly infected with SARS-CoV-2, all provided daily saliva and nasal swabs for quantitative reverse transcr ...[more]

PMID: 34191025

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTata MD CHECK SARS-CoV-2 kit 1.0, a CRISPR based reverse transcription PCR (TMC-CRISPR) test was approved by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for COVID-19 diagnosis in India. To determine the potential for rapid roll-out of this test, we conducted performance characteristic and an operational feasibility assessment (OFA) at a tertiary care setting.InterventionThe study was conducted at an ICMR approved COVID-19 RT-PCR laboratory of King Edward Memorial (KEM) hospital, Mumbai, India. The TMC-CRISPR test was evaluated against the gold-standard RT-PCR test using the same RNA sample extracted from fresh and frozen clinical specimens collected from COVID-19 suspects for routine diagnosis. TMC-CRISPR results were determined manually and using the Tata MD CHECK application. An independent agency conducted interviews of relevant laboratory staff and supervisors for OFA.ResultsOverall, 2,332 (fresh: 2,121, frozen: 211) clinical specimens were analysed of which, 140 (6%) were detected positive for COVID-19 by TMC-CRISPR compared to 261 (11%) by RT-PCR. Overall sensitivity and specificity of CRISPR was 44% (95% CI: 38.1%-50.1%) and 99% (95% CI: 98.2%-99.1%) respectively when compared to RT-PCR. Discordance between TMC-CRISPR and RT-PCR results increased with increasing Ct values and corresponding decreasing viral load (range: <20% to >85%). In the OFA, all participants indicated no additional requirements of training to set up RT PCR. However, extra post-PCR steps such as setting up the CRISPR reaction and handling of detection strips were time consuming and required special training. No significant difference was observed between manual and mobile app-based readings. However, issues such as erroneous results, difficulty in interpretation of faint bands, internet connectivity, data safety and security were highlighted as challenges with the app-based readings.ConclusionThe evaluated version-Tata MD CHECK SARS-CoV-2 kit 1.0 of TMC-CRISPR test cannot be considered as an alternative to the RT-PCR. There is a definite scope for improvement in this assay.

Dataset Information

Longitudinal Assessment of Diagnostic Test Performance Over the Course of Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Longitudinal Assessment of Diagnostic Test Performance Over the Course of Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets