Association of COVID-19 RT-qPCR test false-negative rate with patient age, sex and time since diagnosis
Posted 03 Nov 2020
medRxiv DOI: 10.1101/2020.10.30.20222935
Posted 03 Nov 2020
BackgroundRoutine testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the community is essential for guiding key epidemiological decisions from the quarantine of individual patients to enrolling regional and national preventive measures. Yet, the primary testing tool, the RT-qPCR based testing, is notoriously known for its low sensitivity, i.e. high risk of missed detection of carriers. Quantifying the false-negative rate (FNR) of the RT-qPCR test at the community settings and its dependence on patient demographic and disease progression is therefore key in designing and refining strategies for disease spread prevention. MethodsAnalyzing 843,917 test results of 521,696 patients, we identified false-negative (FN) and true-positive (TP) results as negative and positive results preceded by a COVID-19 diagnosis and followed by a later positive test. Regression analyses were used to determine associations of false-negative results with time of sampling after diagnosis, patient demographics and viral loads based on RT-qPCR Ct values of the next positive tests. FindingsThe overall FNR was 22.8%, which is consistent with previous studies. Yet, this rate was much lower at the first 5 days following diagnosis (10.7%) and only increased in later dates. Furthermore, the FNR was strongly associated with demographics, with odds ratio of 1.74 (95% CI: 1.58-1.90) for women over men and 1.36 (95% CI: 1.34-1.39) for 10 years younger patients. Finally, FNR was associated with viral loads (p-value 0.0005), with a difference of 1.50 (95% CI: 0.70-2.30) between the average Ct of the N gene in a positive test following a false-negative compared to a positive test following a true-positive. InterpretationOur results show that in the first few days following diagnosis, when results are critical for quarantine decisions, RT-qPCR testing is more reliable than previously reported. Yet the reliability of the test result is reduced in later days as well as for women and younger patients, where the viral loads are typically lower. FundingThis research was supported by the ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (grant No. 3633/19) within the KillCorona - Curbing Coronavirus Research Program.
- Downloaded 1,999 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 7,541
- In infectious diseases: 1,033
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 8,244
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 10,141
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!