Abstract
Background In England, free testing for COVID-19 was widely available from early in the pandemic until 1 April 2022. Based on apparent differences in the rate of positive PCR tests at a single laboratory compared to the rest of the laboratory network, we hypothesised that a substantial number of UK PCR tests processed during September and October 2021 may have been incorrectly reported as negative, compared with the rest of the laboratory network. We investigate the epidemiological impact of this incident.
Methods We estimate the additional number of COVID-19 cases that would have been reported had the sensitivity of the laboratory test procedure not dropped for the period 2 September to 12 October. In addition, by making comparisons between the most affected local areas and comparator populations, we estimate the number of additional infections, cases, hospitalisations and deaths that could have occurred as a result of increased transmission due to the misclassification of tests.
Results We estimate that around 39,000 tests may have been incorrectly classified during this period and, as a direct result of this incident, the most affected areas in the South West could have experienced between 6,000 and 34,000 additional reportable cases, with a central estimate of around 24,000 additional reportable cases. Using modelled relationships between key variables, we estimate that this central estimate could have translated to approximately 55,000 additional infections, which means that each incorrect negative test likely led to just over two additional infections. In those same geographical areas, our results also suggest an increased number of admissions and deaths.
Conclusion The incident is likely to have had a measurable impact on cases and infections in the affected areas in the South West of England.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The UK Health Security Agency Caldicott Guardian gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data and code are available online at
https://github.com/publichealthengland/UKHSA_Immensa_analysis
