Insight into the practical performance of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 using serological data: a cohort study

• Published in: The Lancet. Microbe 2021-02, Vol.2 (2), p.e79-e87
• Main Authors: Zhang, Zhen, Bi, Qifang, Fang, Shisong, Wei, Lan, Wang, Xin, He, Jianfan, Wu, Yongsheng, Liu, Xiaojian, Gao, Wei, Zhang, Renli, Gong, Wenfeng, Su, Qiru, Azman, Andrew S, Lessler, Justin, Zou, Xuan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cohort Studies; COVID-19 - diagnosis; Humans; Quarantine; Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction; SARS-CoV-2 - genetics
• ISSN: 2666-5247; 2666-5247
• DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(20)30200-7

Virological detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through RT-PCR has limitations for surveillance. Serological tests can be an important complementary approach. We aimed to assess the practical performance of RT-PCR-based surveillance protocols and determine the extent of undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection in Shenzhen, China. We did a cohort study in Shenzhen, China and attempted to recruit by telephone all RT-PCR-negative close contacts (defined as those who lived in the same residence as, or shared a meal, travelled, or socially interacted with, an index case within 2 days before symptom onset) of all RT-PCR-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 detected since January, 2020, via contact tracing. We measured anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum samples from RT-PCR-negative close contacts 2–15 weeks after initial virological testing by RT-PCR, using total antibody, IgG, and IgM ELISAs. In addition, we did a serosurvey of volunteers from neighbourhoods with no reported cases, and from neighbourhoods with reported cases. We assessed rates of infection undetected by RT-PCR, performance of RT-PCR over the course of infection, and characteristics of individuals who were seropositive on total antibody ELISA but RT-PCR negative. Between April 12 and May 4, 2020, we enrolled and collected serological samples from 2345 (53·0%) of 4422 RT-PCR-negative close contacts of cases of RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2. 1175 (50·1%) of 2345 were close contacts of cases diagnosed in Shenzhen with contact tracing details, and of these, 880 (74·9%) had serum samples collected more than 2 weeks after exposure to an index case and were included in our analysis. 40 (4·5%) of 880 RT-PCR-negative close contacts were positive on total antibody ELISA. The seropositivity rate with total antibody ELISA among RT-PCR-negative close contacts, adjusted for assay performance, was 4·1% (95% CI 2·9–5·7), which was significantly higher than among individuals residing in neighbourhoods with no reported cases (0·0% [95% CI 0·0–1·1]). RT-PCR-positive individuals were 8·0 times (95% CI 5·3–12·7) more likely to report symptoms than those who were RT-PCR-negative but seropositive, but both groups had a similar distribution of sex, age, contact frequency, and mode of contact. RT-PCR did not detect 48 (36% [95% CI 28–44]) of 134 infected close contacts, and false-negative rates appeared to be associated with stage of infection. Even rigorous RT-PCR testing protocols might miss a subs