Distinguishing between COVID-19 and the common cold in a primary care setting - comparison of patients with positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR results

Study design

In this multi-center, cross-sectional study, the characteristics of patients who tested positive and negative for COVID-19 were assessed. A total of 26 office-based specialists for internal and/or general medicine with a full primary care mandate from 14 different locations participated in the study.

Setting

All locations collected patient-related data based on a uniform quality standard in the documentation of COVID-19 suspect cases that we provided. Each site reported anonymous data on all CovPCR swabs taken. All data were noted on a paper-based, structured documentation form and passed on anonymously for evaluation. The documentation form was prepared on the basis of the recommendations of the RKI as well as the available evidence on symptoms and risk factors for COVID-19 and was subjected to pre-testing with experienced family physicians [5-8]. The test reason “Patient is contact person without symptoms” was included in addition to the test reasons recommended by the RKI, as it had already been used frequently in everyday practice. The study period was from 24.03.2020 to 17.04.2020 - this period was chosen because the RKI criteria for carrying out a CovPCR remained unchanged.

Participants

The participating GP’s practices represented a “convenience sample”. Selection criteria were the performance of smear tests, structured documentation and willingness to participate. All patients who received CovPCR in the participating GP’s practices within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Patients whose tests had been carried out for procedural reasons and did not correspond to a specific clinical indication were excluded (e.g. testing of recovered patients after end of quarantine). There were no other exclusion criteria.

Variables and data sources

The variables under study included: Age, sex, reason for the test, risk factors, symptoms leading to the test, result expected by the GP and actual CovPCR results. All information was extracted from the anonymized documentation forms

Bias

In order to ensure that there was no excessive distortion in the patient collective due to the convenience sampling of practices, age and sex of the tested persons were compared with demographic data from a large national sample of CovPCR-tests [3].

Statistical methods

Data entry was performed twice and the data sets were compared digitally, any deviations were checked and a plausibility check of the data entered was performed. The statistical evaluation was carried out with the statistics program R. In addition to the descriptive statistics, initial chi-square tests were performed for different potential influencing factors (symptoms, test reason, etc.) on the test result (CovPCR positive yes/no). Statistically significant influencing factors were then transferred to a logistic regression model to check their effect strength. Missing data were reported in the descriptive part, for the regression model missing values were assigned to the more frequent result (deviation to the middle), a proportion of missing values >5% was not exceeded per variable.

The study design was reviewed by the ethics committee of the University of Leipzig, Germany under the procedure number 184/20-ek, there were no ethical concerns. This study was conducted without external financial support.

Main result

The main result of this work is the shown correlation between a positive CovPCR and the symptom anosmia as well as a confirmed contact with an infected person, regardless of whether the tested person itself had symptoms or not.

Strengths and limitations

In this work, predictive factors for a positive CovPCR were investigated for the first time. The evaluation was performed with a multicentric approach and was based on a common documentation standard. The selection of the practices was non-randomized, as a rapid implementation of the study was preferred to a lengthier randomized selection in respect to the pandemics’ rapid evolution. This may have resulted in a distortion of the investigated patient collective, although, no conspicuous deviations were found in comparison to the demographic data of all patients tested in Germany as published by the RKI: the age median in our population was 44 years (IQR: 31-59) compared to 42 years (IQR: 29-56) in a sample of +1.000.000 patients tested in Germany [3]. Therefore, the results could be considered representative for patients in Germany. The major limitation of this study is the small sample size resulting in wide CIs and a connected uncertainty regarding the strength and direction of several effects. Still, this is the first study to show clinical risk factors for a positive CovPCR and its results are in line with the current evidence base [5-8].

Number of patients tested and rates of positives

The proportion of test-positive patients in our population was 10.7%, which is slightly above the average of positive tests performed in Germany during this period (North Rhine-Westphalia (9.3%), Rhineland-Palatinate (9.6%), Hesse (11.8%)) [3]. The number of tests decreased towards the end of the investigation period, which parallels the decreasing number of new COVID-19 infections in Germany as well as the end of the pandemic cold season in early spring.

Factors that were associated with a negative test result

Negative tests were associated with the symptom “sore throat”. This result is consistent with the low prevalence of the symptom “sore throat” in confirmed COVID-19 cases [6]. The correlation found between age and test results is marginal (younger people were tested negative more often) and may be explained by local outbreaks in nursing homes. This effect will most likely disappear due to diffusion processes during the course of the pandemic and may not be present in countries with a more homogenous spreading pattern.

Factors that were associated with a positive test result

Positive tests were associated with confirmed contact. This was to be expected, but it was surprising that this also applied to asymptomatic patients. He et al. concluded that 45% of infections occur in the pre-symptomatic phase of the patient, i.e. the patient is still asymptomatic but already has large amounts of virus replicated in the throat and is highly contagious [9]. This result underlines the particular relevance of contact anamnesis for the test decision, but also the relevance of early isolation of potentially affected contacts.

Of particular clinical importance is the observed association between the symptom anosmia and a positive PCR result. Anosmia has already been described as a relevant COVID-19 symptom in other studies, but this is the first study to show that anosmia may be a useful discriminator between COVID-19 and other, endemic respiratory tract infections [8,10,11]. Since the examined patients mainly presented with fever, cough, muscle pain and other cold symptoms, which are common with endemic respiratory tract infections, anosmia can be an important indication of COVID-19. Although anosmia is a secondary symptom of a variety of viral respiratory infections, the incidence of anosmia without acute or chronic rhinitis in COVID-19 is striking [8,10-12]. Reporting from our clinical experience with COVID-19, anosmia was sometimes so pronounced in COVID-19 patients that it was presented as the sole symptom upon presentation. Therefore, we recommend that patients are always asked for fever, cough, dyspnea and anosmia as part of the initial stratification process. In case of isolated anosmia in the absence of chronic or acute rhinosinusitis, we recommend a testing for COVID-19 infection, as already suggested in a French case series by Villalba et al. and others [8,11,13]