RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Occurrence and Timing of Subsequent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Positivity Among Initially Negative Patients
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.05.03.20089151
DO 10.1101/2020.05.03.20089151
A1 Long, Dustin R.
A1 Gombar, Saurabh
A1 Hogan, Catherine A.
A1 Greninger, Alexander L.
A1 Shah, Vikas O’Reilly
A1 Bryson-Cahn, Chloe
A1 Stevens, Bryan
A1 Rustagi, Arjun
A1 Jerome, Keith R.
A1 Kong, Christina S.
A1 Zehnder, James
A1 Shah, Nigam H.
A1 Weiss, Noel S.
A1 Pinsky, Benjamin A.
A1 Sunshine, Jacob
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/08/2020.05.03.20089151.abstract
AB Background SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing remains the cornerstone of laboratory-based identification of patients with COVID-19. As the availability and speed of SARS-CoV-2 testing platforms improve, results are increasingly relied upon to inform critical decisions related to therapy, use of personal protective equipment, and workforce readiness. However, early reports of RT-PCR test performance have left clinicians and the public with concerns regarding the reliability of this predominant testing modality and the interpretation of negative results. In this work, two independent research teams report the frequency of discordant SARS-CoV-2 test results among initially negative, repeatedly tested patients in regions of the United States with early community transmission and access to testing.Methods All patients at the University of Washington (UW) and Stanford Health Care undergoing initial testing by nasopharyngeal (NP) swab between March 2nd and April 7th, 2020 were included. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR was performed targeting the N, RdRp, S, and E genes and ORF1ab, using a combination of Emergency Use Authorization laboratory-developed tests and commercial assays. Results through April 14th were extracted to allow for a complete 7-day observation period and an additional day for reporting.Results A total of 23,126 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests (10,583 UW, 12,543 Stanford) were performed in 20,912 eligible patients (8,977 UW, 11,935 Stanford) undergoing initial testing by NP swab; 626 initially test-negative patients were re-tested within 7 days. Among this group, repeat testing within 7 days yielded a positive result in 3.5% (4.3% UW, 2.8% Stanford) of cases, suggesting an initial false negative RT-PCR result; the majority (96.5%) of patients with an initial negative result who warranted reevaluation for any reason remained negative on all subsequent tests performed within this window.Conclusions Two independent research teams report the similar finding that, among initially negative patients subjected to repeat SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, the occurrence of a newly positive result within 7 days is uncommon. These observations suggest that false negative results at the time of initial presentation do occur, but potentially at a lower frequency than is currently believed. Although it is not possible to infer the clinical sensitivity of NP SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing using these data, they may be used in combination with other reports to guide the use and interpretation of this common testing modality.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNIH/NIGMS (T32 GM086270-11, DRL)Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesNA