scholarly journals What Is the Predictive Value of a Single Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR Swab Test in a Patient With COVID-Like Symptoms and/or Significant COVID-19 Exposure?

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Blessen George ◽  
James McGee ◽  
Eileen Giangrasso ◽  
Sheila Finkelstein ◽  
Susan Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Hospital Workers ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Pcr Screening ◽  
Test Characteristics ◽  
Antibody Titers ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Pcr Test

Abstract Utilizing results of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and subsequent antibody titers, we report on the test characteristics of a PCR screening test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 among hospital workers. The PCR test was found to be 87% sensitive and 97% specific, with a positive predictive value of 0.98 and a negative predictive value of 0.80.

scholarly journals Is the Portable Chest Radiographic More Reliable to Reveal Covid19 in Highly Suspicion Patient before Real-Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Test?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (03) ◽  
pp. 228-236
Author(s):  
Bushra A. A. Albazi ◽  
Dr Noof. Albaz ◽  
Dr Nayef. Alqahtani ◽  
Dr. Angham Salih ◽  
Dr Rafat Mohtasab
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Rate Type ◽  
Test Result ◽  
Pcr Test

A large number of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) present at hospitals. There are a limited number of isolation rooms open, and patients must often wait a long time to get a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test done. This necessitates the introduction of effective triage plans. A patient with suspicions is referred to an emergency room (ED) depending on their medical record for a simple physical assessment, blood test findings, and chest imaging.A retrospective study design was conduct at Prince Sultan Medical Military City (PSMMC). Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional board to wave the consent forms since it is a retrospective study. Only the primary investigator has had the data access to the patients’ medical records. The collected patient records were under specific categories, including symptoms score starts from 5 and above, RT-PCR test result done after CXRP imaging, the patient admitted to the emergency department (ED). Excluding all CXRP done after RT-PCR TEST, positive Covid 19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), pediatric patients, and patients with score symptoms were less than five. Two experienced radiologists reviewed the images blindly, and the inter-observer reliability of observations noted by the radiologists was calculated. As for the relationship between the x-ray reading and the RT-PCR test result, our results showed a high correlation between the variables (chi-square χ² = 12.44, with df =1, and p<0.001). The sensitivity of x-ray diagnosing covid19 was 65.52 %, while the specificity was 54.51 %, and the accuracy of radiologists reading was 58.17 %. Furthermore, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 41.76 %, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 76.05%. Finally, the false positive rate (type-i error (alpha) was 45.49%, and the false-negative rate (type-ii error (beta) was 34.48% Our research findings show that CXRP imaging can detect COVID-19 infection in symptomatic patients and can be a valuable addition to RT-PCR testing. In an inpatient ED environment where availability of test kits, laboratory equipment, and laboratory personnel is compromised and risks delaying patient treatment and hospital workflow, serial CXRP could theoretically be used as an adjunct diagnostic function and monitoring in patients suspected of having COVID-19.

scholarly journals A meta-analysis of accuracy and sensitivity of chest CT and RT-PCR in COVID-19 diagnosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Khatami ◽  
Mohammad Saatchi ◽  
Seyed Saeed Tamehri Zadeh ◽  
Zahra Sadat Aghamir ◽  
Alireza Namazi Shabestari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Reverse Transcriptase ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chest Ct ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Chest Ct Scan

AbstractNowadays there is an ongoing acute respiratory outbreak caused by the novel highly contagious coronavirus (COVID-19). The diagnostic protocol is based on quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and chests CT scan, with uncertain accuracy. This meta-analysis study determines the diagnostic value of an initial chest CT scan in patients with COVID-19 infection in comparison with RT-PCR. Three main databases; PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and EMBASE were systematically searched for all published literature from January 1st, 2019, to the 21st May 2020 with the keywords "COVID19 virus", "2019 novel coronavirus", "Wuhan coronavirus", "2019-nCoV", "X-Ray Computed Tomography", "Polymerase Chain Reaction", "Reverse Transcriptase PCR", and "PCR Reverse Transcriptase". All relevant case-series, cross-sectional, and cohort studies were selected. Data extraction and analysis were performed using STATA v.14.0SE (College Station, TX, USA) and RevMan 5. Among 1022 articles, 60 studies were eligible for totalizing 5744 patients. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of chest CT scan compared to RT-PCR were 87% (95% CI 85–90%), 46% (95% CI 29–63%), 69% (95% CI 56–72%), and 89% (95% CI 82–96%), respectively. It is important to rely on the repeated RT-PCR three times to give 99% accuracy, especially in negative samples. Regarding the overall diagnostic sensitivity of 87% for chest CT, the RT-PCR testing is essential and should be repeated to escape misdiagnosis.

scholarly journals EXPRESS: Clinical performance of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 combined in an algorithm with two specific anti-IgG immunoassays for the evaluation of the serological response of patients with COVID-19 in a population with a high prevalence of infection

2021 ◽  
pp. 000456322110380
Author(s):  
Xavier Gabaldó-Barrios ◽  
Simona Iftimie ◽  
Anna Hernández-Aguilera ◽  
Isabel Pujol ◽  
Frederic Ballester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Response ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Polymerase Chain Reaction Test ◽  
Serological Response ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Automated Assay ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Polymerase Chain

Background: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have been used in the study of the immune response in infected patients. However, differences in sensitivity and specificity have been reported, depending on the method of analysis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an algorithm in which a high-throughput automated assay for total antibodies was used for screening and two semi-automated IgG-specific methods were used to confirm the results, and also to correlate the analytical results with the clinical data and the time elapsed since infection. Methods: We studied 306 patients, some hospitalized and some outpatients, belonging to a population with a high prevalence of COVID-19. One-hundred and ten patients were classified as SARS-CoV-2 negative and 196 as positive by polymerase chain reaction. Results: The algorithm and automated assay alone had a specificity and a positive predictive value of 100%, although the sensitivity and negative predictive value of the algorithm was higher. Both methods showed a good sensitivity from day 11 of the onset of symptoms in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. The absorbance of the total antibodies was significantly higher in severely symptomatic than in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients, which suggests the antibody level was higher. We found 15 patients that did not present seroconversion at 12 days from the onset of symptoms or the first polymerase chain reaction test. Conclusion: This study highlights the proper functioning of algorithms in the diagnosis of the immune response to COVID-19, which can help to define testing strategies against this disease.

scholarly journals Peripheral Blood Leukocytes and Serum Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction Are Complementary Methods for Monitoring Active Cytomegalovirus Infection in Transplant Patients

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. e69-e74 ◽  
Author(s):  
PD Andrade ◽  
MT Fioravanti ◽  
EBV Anjos ◽  
C De Oliveira ◽  
DM Albuquerque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Positive Predictive Value ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Cytomegalovirus Infection ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Peripheral Blood Leukocytes ◽  
Active Infection ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Blood Leukocytes ◽  
Polymerase Chain

BACKGROUND: Human cytomegalovirus is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Qualitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has proven to be a sensitive and effective technique in defining active cytomegalovirus infection, in addition to having low cost and being a useful test for situations in which there is no need for quantification. Real-time PCR has the advantage of quantification; however, the high cost of this methodology makes it impractical for routine use.OBJECTIVE: To apply a nested PCR assay to serum (sPCR) and to evaluate its efficiency to diagnose active cytomegalovirus infection compared with PCR of peripheral blood leukocytes (L-PCR).METHODS: Samples of 37 patients were prospectively evaluated. An internal control was created and applied to sPCR to exclude false-negative results.RESULTS: In total, 21 patients (57%) developed active cytomegalovirus infection. After analyzing the two methods for the diagnosis of active infection, higher sensitivity and negative predictive value of the L-PCR versus sPCR (100% versus 62%), and higher specificity and positive predictive value of sPCR versus L-PCR (81% versus 50% and 72%, respectively) were observed. Discordant results were observed in 11 patients who were L-PCR-positive but sPCR-negative for active cytomegalovirus infection, five of whom developed clinical symptoms of cytomegalovirus. Clinical symptoms were observed in 14 patients, 12 of whom were diagnosed with active infection by nested L-PCR (P=0.007) and seven by nested sPCR (P=0.02). Higher specificity and a positive predictive value for sPCR were observed.CONCLUSION: Nested L-PCR and sPCR were considered to be complementary methods for the diagnosis and management of symptomatic cytomegalovirus infection.

scholarly journals Performance of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test in the Liverpool asymptomatic testing pilot: population based cohort study

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n1637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta García-Fiñana ◽  
David M Hughes ◽  
Christopher P Cheyne ◽  
Girvan Burnside ◽  
Mark Stockbridge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Polymerase Chain Reaction ◽  
Viral Load ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
High Viral Load ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Flow Test ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Lateral Flow Test

Abstract Objective To assess the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test (LFT) versus polymerase chain reaction testing in the asymptomatic general population attending testing centres. Design Observational cohort study. Setting Community LFT pilot at covid-19 testing sites in Liverpool, UK. Participants 5869 asymptomatic adults (≥18 years) voluntarily attending one of 48 testing sites during 6-29 November 2020. Interventions Participants were tested using both an Innova LFT and a quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test based on supervised self-administered swabbing at testing sites. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of LFT compared with RT-qPCR in an epidemic steady state of covid-19 among adults with no classic symptoms of the disease. Results Of 5869 test results, 22 (0.4%) LFT results and 343 (5.8%) RT-qPCR results were void (that is, when the control line fails to appear within 30 minutes). Excluding the void results, the LFT versus RT-qPCR showed a sensitivity of 40.0% (95% confidence interval 28.5% to 52.4%; 28/70), specificity of 99.9% (99.8% to 99.99%; 5431/5434), positive predictive value of 90.3% (74.2% to 98.0%; 28/31), and negative predictive value of 99.2% (99.0% to 99.4%; 5431/5473). When the void samples were assumed to be negative, a sensitivity was observed for LFT of 37.8% (26.8% to 49.9%; 28/74), specificity of 99.6% (99.4% to 99.8%; 5431/5452), positive predictive value of 84.8% (68.1% to 94.9%; 28/33), and negative predictive value of 93.4% (92.7% to 94.0%; 5431/5814). The sensitivity in participants with an RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) of <18.3 (approximate viral loads >10 6 RNA copies/mL) was 90.9% (58.7% to 99.8%; 10/11), a Ct of <24.4 (>10 4 RNA copies/mL) was 69.4% (51.9% to 83.7%; 25/36), and a Ct of >24.4 (<10 4 RNA copies/mL) was 9.7% (1.9% to 23.7%; 3/34). LFT is likely to detect at least three fifths and at most 998 in every 1000 people with a positive RT-qPCR test result with high viral load. Conclusions The Innova LFT can be useful for identifying infections among adults who report no symptoms of covid-19, particularly those with high viral load who are more likely to infect others. The number of asymptomatic adults with lower Ct (indicating higher viral load) missed by LFT, although small, should be considered when using single LFT in high consequence settings. Clear and accurate communication with the public about how to interpret test results is important, given the chance of missing some cases, even at high viral loads. Further research is needed to understand how infectiousness is reflected in the viral antigen shedding detected by LFT versus the viral loads approximated by RT-qPCR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document