Clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of inconclusive results in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays

Original article: novelty of Canadian manufacture nasopharyngeal swabs for collection of samples being tested for SARS-CoV-2 in a pandemic setting

Objectives

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a global shortage of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, required for RT-PCR testing. Canadian manufacturers were contacted to share NP swab innovations. The primary objective was to determine whether novel NP test swabs were comparable to commercially available swabs regarding user characteristics, ability to collect a specimen, and diagnostic performance using RT-PCR testing.

Methods

Participants were randomized by swab (test/control) and nostril (left/right). A calculated positive percent agreement ≥90% was considered successful. Mean Ct values of viral genes and housekeeping gene (RNase P) were considered similar if a Ct difference ≤ 2 between control and test group was obtained. There also was a qualitative assessment of swabs usability.

Results

647 participants were enrolled from Huaycan Hospital in Lima, Peru, distributed over 8 NP swabs brands. Seven brands agreed to share their results. There were no statistically significant differences between the test swabs of these 7 brands and control swabs.

Conclusion

All the seven brands are comparable to the commercially available flocked swabs used for SARS-CoV-2 regarding test results agreement, ability to collect a specimen, and user characteristics.

Quality of the sample-based RNA determines the real-time RT-PCR results in the laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19

Effect of the quality of sample-based RNA on COVID-19 real-time RT-PCR results was investigated. The purity of the extracts was dependent on the extraction method (P<0.0001) and affected the test interpretations (P = 0.002). Gross RNA concentration negatively correlated with Ct values (P < 0.0001). The presence of impurities contributed to inconclusive test results.

COVID or no COVID: Interpreting inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 qPCR results in different populations and platforms

Introduction

High cycle threshold values (Ct) value) results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may be true infections or false-positive results. Misinterpretation of results has negative consequences. Goal of this study was to evaluate quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) results with high Ct-values, to reach a point where a correct interpretation can be given.

Methods

High Ct-value results of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples taken between April 2020 and January 2021 were analysed. Three different SARS-CoV-2 qPCR assays (in-house, Alinity M and Xpert Xpress) were used for screening patients and healthcare workers (HCW). High Ct-value results were defined as "inconclusive". The Ct-value cut-off for the interpretation of the test as "positive" and "inconclusive" were based on quality assurance panel results and manufacturers' instructions.

Results

Out of totally 50.295 samples tested for SARS-CoV-2, the in-house and Alinity M qPCR together yielded 379 inconclusive results. A second sample existed for 217 samples, allowing dynamics of the PCR in time. Of these, 187 were negative (86%), 11 again inconclusive (5%) and 19 positive (9%). Sixteen out of 19 persons with a positive result were HCW, 14 (74%) had a link to a SARS-CoV-2 infected person. The majority of inconclusive results detected with the Xpert Xpress (n=45 of 3603), were related to individuals with a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=28, 62%).

Conclusion

This study shows the importance of re-testing inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 qPCR results. Only then, the correct (true or false) interpretation can be given, leading to the right measures.

Different interpretations of inconclusive results of SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT PCR

We investigated whether inconclusive results could be interpreted differently depending on the situation. First, data from retesting of the initial samples from subjects without a confirmed COVID-19 history were analyzed. And by analyzing the results of consecutive tests with new specimens after receiving inconclusive results between arrivals and locals for two periods. As a result, 179 of 219 cases (81.7%) showed still inconclusive or weakly positive results. If contamination is well controlled in a general laboratory, the effectiveness of retesting with the same sample is limited. The rate of the subsequently positive patient was significantly higher in locals than in arrivals and periods with a higher positive rate. The inconclusive results could be interpreted differently depending on the epidemiologic background and the positive rate at that time.

Follow-up COVID-19 PCR result up to day 5 with clinical features predicts positivity for inconclusive results

Introduction

False-positive inconclusive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were not low and have potentially harmful effects. We aimed to find parameters to differentiate positive cases from false-positive ones, and suggest an optimal scheme and follow-up period for inconclusive results.

Methods

Cases with inconclusive PCR tests among healthcare personnel from February 2020 to June 2021 were classified as confirmed positive, clinically positive, and clinically negative groups, which were compared. The diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests and composites of clinical and laboratory data were analyzed.

Results

Symptoms, contact history, and lower cycle threshold of the N gene were more common in the COVID-19 positive group. The scoring schemes combining symptom and contact history with follow-up PCR results had higher sensitivities than the PCR tests only modality. Follow-up tests up to 5 days combined with symptoms and contact history could discriminate between positive and negative cases.

Conclusion

A follow-up PCR test up to day 5 with clinical features might predict positivity and shorten the quarantine period in most healthcare personnel.

Dealing with inconclusive SARS-CoV-2 PCR samples-Our experience

Purpose

Early confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 is a key point in the timely management of infected patients and contact persons. Routine diagnostics of COVID-19 cases relies on RT-PCR detection of two or three unique sequences of the virus. A serious problem for the laboratories is how to interpret inconclusive samples which are positive for only one of the SARS-CoV-2 specific genes.

Materials and methods

A total of 16364 naso-oropharyngeal swabs were collected and tested with SARS-CoV-2 Real-TM kit (Sacace Biotechnologies, Italy) between May and September 2020. We retrospectively analyzed their amplification plots to determine the number of inconclusive samples. We also reviewed the medical records to summarize the patient’s COVID-19 testing history and basic demographic characteristics.

Results

We obtained 136 (0.8%) inconclusive samples with amplification signal only for the N-gene. Thirty-nine of the samples were excluded from further analysis as no additional data were available for them. Of the rest of the samples, the majority– 48% (95% CI 38–59%) had a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, 14% (95% CI 8–23%)–a subsequent history of positivity and 37% (95% CI 28–48%) were considered as false positive.

Conclusion

A substantial proportion of the inconclusive results should be considered as positive samples at the beginning or the end of the infection. However, the number of false-positive results is also significant and each patient’s result should be analyzed separately following the clinical symptoms and epidemiological data.