bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020 · 169 citations · 9 references
MedicineInfectious DiseasesMolecular DiagnosticsMolecular VirologyVirologyFalse PositivesInfectious Disease DetectionInfectious Disease Molecular TestingPathogen DetectionViral DiagnosticsViral EpidemiologyDiagnostic Assay DevelopmentFalse Negative DetectionFalse Negative MeasurementFalse Negative Rate AnalysisFalse Negative Rate EvaluationPoint-of-care Viral TestingRapid Viral DiagnosticsSars-cov-2 Infection
Resolving the COVID-19 pandemic requires diagnostic testing to determine which individuals are infected and which are not. The current gold standard is to perform RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples. Best-in-class assays demonstrate a limit of detection (LoD) of ~100 copies of viral RNA per milliliter of transport media. However, LoDs of currently approved assays vary over 10,000-fold. Assays with higher LoDs will miss more infected patients, resulting in more false negatives. However, the false-negative rate for a given LoD remains unknown. Here we address this question using over 27,500 test results for patients from across our healthcare network tested using the Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 EUA. These results suggest that each 10-fold increase in LoD is expected to increase the false negative rate by 13%, missing an additional one in eight infected patients. The highest LoDs on the market will miss a majority of infected patients, with false negative rates as high as 70%. These results suggest that choice of assay has meaningful clinical and epidemiological consequences. The limit of detection matters.
9
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens
Yanli Xu, Ruqin Gao, Roujian Lu et al. · JAMA · 2020 · 5.3K citations · Full text
Cody Callahan, Rose Lee, Katelyn E. Zulauf et al. · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · 2020 · 137 citations · Full text