key: cord-0700888-43opitmg authors: Kızıloglu, Ilker; Sener, Aslı; Siliv, Neslihan title: Comparison of rapid antibody test and thorax computed tomography results in patients who underwent RT‐PCR with the pre‐diagnosis of COVID‐19 date: 2021-07-06 journal: Int J Clin Pract DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14524 sha: d72703cf7971fafc419e8300b0c0b87166ece253 doc_id: 700888 cord_uid: 43opitmg INTRODUCTION: In this study, it is planned to compare the real‐time reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) test, which is the gold standard in the diagnosis of COVID‐19, with thorax computed tomography (CT) and rapid antibody test results. METHODS: Patients who were admitted to the emergency service of İzmir Çiğli Training and Research Hospital between 01.04.2020 and 31.05.2020 and who were suspected of having COVID‐19 infection were included in the study. The medical records of the patients were retrospectively analysed through the hospital data processing database. Age, gender, hospitalisation, status of home quarantine, real‐time RT‐PCR, thorax CT and rapid antibody test results of the patients were examined. The relationship between RT‐PCR, thorax CT and rapid antibody test results was compared statistically. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients, 115 (63.5%) male and 66 (36.5%) female, with an average age of 56.4 ± 18.06 years were included in the study. The nasopharyngeal swab PCR result obtained at the first admission of the patients to the emergency department was positive in 71 (39.2%) patients. Rapid antibody tests performed at hospital admission were positive in 57 (31.5%) patients. Thorax CT was performed in 173 (95.6%) patients who applied to the emergency department, and 112 (64.7%) of them had findings that could be compatible with COVID‐19. According to the thorax CT findings in patients, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for detecting COVID‐19 infection were, respectively, 76.1%, 43.1%, 48.2% and 72.1% (ĸ: 0.176, P < .001). According to the rapid antibody test results, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for detecting COVID‐19 infection were 57.5%, 85.5%, 71.9% and 75.8%, respectively (ĸ: 0.448, P < .001). In our study, the mortality rate for COVID‐19 was found to be 2.8%. CONCLUSION: Rapid antibody test and thorax CT examinations were found to have low diagnostic value in patients who admitted to the emergency department of our hospital and whose first RT‐PCR SARS‐CoV‐2 test was positive. Studies involving larger patient groups are needed for their use alone in diagnosis and screening. In December 2019, a series of 41 severe viral pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan city, Hubei Province, China, whose cause could not be identified. 1 Subsequent full genome sequencing and phylogenic analysis showed that SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the betacoronavirus 2b lineage, which belongs to the same group as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS CoV), a highly virulent pathogen in humans. 2 reported as a global public health emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO) in January 2020 and was declared a pandemic on March 11. 4, 5 The disease is transmitted by inhalation or contact with infected droplets, and the incubation period varies between 2 and 14 days. Symptoms are usually fever, cough, sore throat and dyspnoea. Symptoms are mild in most of the asymptomatic cases. However, in some patients (usually the elderly and those with co-morbidities), it can progress to pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiple organ dysfunction. It is estimated that the case mortality rate varies between 2% and 3%. 6 However, most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 do not have symptoms. 7, 8 The potential for patients with no symptoms to spread COVID-19; it confirms the importance of early diagnosis, monitoring and isolation. portant to provide appropriate medical support to patients and to prevent disease spread by quarantine. The current recommendation for the diagnosis of active infection is to detect viral RNA from respiratory tract samples by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). [9] [10] [11] [12] RT-PCR test for COVID-19 is thought to have high specificity, but its sensitivity has been reported to be as low as 59%-71%. 13, 14 Alternative protocols with similar sensitivity were needed in SARS-CoV-2 screening due to the increasing rapidity of the COVID-19 pandemic, the difficulty of detecting asymptomatic cases, low sensitivity and time-consuming results of the RT-PCR test and the inability of thorax computed tomography (CT). [15] [16] [17] [18] Recently, test methods have been developed for the rapid detection of combined SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies in human serum/plasma. 19 In our study, we aimed to evaluate the results of simultaneous thorax CT and ELISA-based IgM/IgG tests in COVID-19 patients diagnosed with RT-PCR in our emergency department and to demonstrate the value of serological tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Among the patients aged 18 and over who applied to the emergency department with suspicion of COVID-19 between 01.04.2020 and 31.05.2020, the patients whose COVID-19 diagnostic code (U07. 3) was entered according to the ICD-10 classification were included in the study. The medical records of the patients were retrospectively examined through the hospital data processing database. Patients younger than 18 years old, patients for whom the COVID-19 diagnosis code was not entered and those whose any of RT-PCR, thorax CT or rapid antibody tests were absent were excluded from the study. • Rapid antibody test is as useful for the diagnosis of COVID-19 as RT-PCR and thorax CT. • Among the patients aged 18 and over who applied to the emergency department with suspicion of COVID-19 between 01.04.2020 and 31.05.2020, the patients whose COVID-19 diagnostic code (U07.3) was entered according to the ICD-10 classification were included in the study. • The medical records of the patients were retrospectively examined through the hospital data processing database. • Rapid antibody test can be useful for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in minutes. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction analysis was performed on materials obtained by NS from patients admitted to the emergency department. A one-step real-time RT-PCR test targeting the nucleocapsid gene and the open reading frame 1 ab gene was performed with 5 μL of a total nucleic acid according to the manufacturer's instructions. The rapid antibody test (Bioeasy COVID-19 Coronavirus IgG/IgM GICA Rapid Test Kit©) used for evaluation gives a qualitative IgG/ IgM result to reveal a current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. 20 This test has been approved by the Ministry of Health for use in detecting antibody formation in risk groups in the community, healthcare workers and recovered patients. There are rapid antibody tests used for COVID-19 and produced by different companies. In head-to-head studies conducted with these tests, Bioeasy kits have been reported to have 91%-95% sensitivity levels (ĸ: 0.8, P < .001). 20 The rapid antibody test gives results in as little as 30 minutes. The serum sample taken for the test is dropped onto the cassette of the rapid test kit, and the presence of antibody is qualitatively shown in 15 minutes. CT imaging was performed in the supine position with raised arms and at the end of inspiration. Two radiologists experienced in the field of thorax CT reviewed the thin-section and thick-section CT images, respectively, and the decision was made. Radiologists have identified the dominant appearances on CT images: ground glass density, crazy-paving pattern, consolidation and other findings. All thorax CT images were classified as normal, non-COVID lung findings, compatible with low probability COVID- 19 to show how many times more risky those with a risk factor were compared with those who did not. Sensitivity and specificity ratios for the relationship between the classification separated by the cut-off value calculated according to the variables of the groups and the actual classification were expressed by receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis. Kappa statistics were used to evaluate the correlation between PCR and rapid antibody test and CT methods. Quantitative variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and median (minimum/maximum) in the tables, whereas categorical variables were shown as n (%). Variables were examined at a 95% confidence level, and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Table 1 . According to the rapid antibody test results, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV in detecting COVID-19 infection were 57.5%, 85.5%, 71.9% and 75.8%, respectively (ĸ: 0.448, P < .001) ( Table 3) . Whereas the rate of hospitalisation of patients with positive COVID-19 PCR was higher, the rate of intensive care admission was lower than other patients. However, four (5.6%) of the patients with positive PCR were followed up as intubated in the intensive care unit. In our study, the mortality rate for COVID-19 was found to be 2.8%. 25 This situation may result in false-negative results due to technical problems in sampling, laboratory practice standards, complex technical procedures and lack of experienced staff. As a result of a systematic review of COVID-19 test accuracy, falsenegative rates ranging from 2% to 29% were reported based on the results of patients whose first RT-PCR result was negative and repeat tests were positive. 26 Due to the low sensitivity of the PCR test in the diagnosis and treatment algorithm of the disease, it is aimed to support the diagnosis and to prevent possible false negativities with thorax CT examination. In a study performed on 1014 patients who underwent thorax CT and RT-PCR tests, the sensitivity of CT was found to be 97% in positive RT-PCR patients. 14 It is thought that CT scanning can help distinguish COVID-19 positive and negative patients in the emergency room. [27] [28] [29] Based on this, guidelines were prepared by the WHO for the combined use of thorax CT and RT-PCR in the diagnosis of Due to the lack of diagnostic reagents, some patients can be clinically diagnosed with thorax CT imaging. 21 Successful management of disease spread will require serological detection of past infection to determine immunity. 39 Antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 are usually detected within just more than a week after the onset of symptoms, limiting the role of serology in identifying acute infection. 40 As stated in the literature, it has been shown that IgM and IgG levels can be measured in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from the first week of the disease or generally from the second week. [41] [42] [43] These findings were found to be parallel to the antibody development characteristics of MERS-CoV infection. 44 This situation restricts the use of antibody tests for screening purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic. 43, 45, 46 These limitations have led to the development of different serological microplate ELISA tests. 45, 47 Some authors stated that the combination of molecular and serological techniques can reach a sensitivity of 97% in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 43, 45 However, these time-consuming tests based on ELISA are generally not as suitable for clinical use as rapid tests and are difficult to incorporate into management algorithms in emergency departments. 43, 45, 48, 49 Testing IgM and IgG production in response to viral infection can be a simple method to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the molecular test. 45 Additionally, it can be used for the use of rapid antibody test combining with RT-PCR and thorax CT may prevent false-negative results in our society, which population immunity is still low. There are some limitations in our study. First of all, the selection of patients among the patients who applied to the emergency department made it difficult to evaluate asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers. It was thought that taking the single NS RT-PCR tests taken at the time of admission as an index caused the false-negative patients to be excluded due to the low sensitivity of the PCR test. In addition, rapid antibody tests evaluated in the emergency department were thought to affect the test results as they could not reach sufficient levels as a result of not allowing the window time required for antibody development. In conclusion, rapid antibody test and thorax CT examinations were found to have low diagnostic value in patients who applied to the emergency department of our hospital and had a positive first RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test. Studies involving larger patient groups are needed for their use alone in diagnosis and screening. We would like to thank emergency physicians who helped us in our study. All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Aslı Sener https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2107-9438 Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan A Novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding Coronavirus disease 2019 Situation Report 10 30th Coronavirus disease 2019 Situation Report 51 11th A review of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility Covid-19: four fifths of cases are asymptomatic, China figures indicate Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR Comparative performance of SARS-CoV-2 detection assays using seven different primerprobe sets and one assay kit Triplex real-time RT-PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Comparison of the Panther Fusion and a laboratory-developed test targeting the envelope gene for detection of SARS-CoV-2 Sensitivity of chest CT for COVID-19: comparison to RT-PCR Correlation of chest CT and RT-PCR testing in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: a report of 1014 cases Limits of detection of 6 approved RT-PCR kits for the novel SARS-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Comparison of Abbott ID Now, Diasorin Simplexa, and CDC FDA EUA methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal and nasal swabs from individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 The detection of SARS-CoV-2 using the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 and Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 Assays Significance of serology testing to assist timely diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections: implication from a family cluster Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis Head-to-head comparison of four antigen-based rapid detection tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples Chest CT features of COVID-19 in Improved molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 by the novel, highly sensitive and specific COVID-19-RdRp/Hel real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay validated in vitro and with clinical specimens Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on CT scan vs RT-PCR: reflecting on experience from MERS-CoV Analytical sensitivity and efficiency comparisons of SARS-COV-2 qRT-PCR primer-probe sets Clinical characteristics and intrauterine vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in nine pregnant women: a retrospective review of medical records False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for covid-19: a systematic review Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): role of chest CT in diagnosis and management Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a perspective from China The role of chest imaging in patient management during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multinational consensus statement from the Fleischner Society COVID-19 in a patient presenting with syncope and a normal chest X-ray Essentials for radiologists on COVID-19: an update-radiology scientific expert panel CT Imaging of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) pneumonia Emerging 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) pneumonia CT imaging features of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) CT Manifestations of two cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) pneumonia Optimizing diagnostic strategy for novel coronavirus pneumonia, a multi-center study in Eastern China Chest CT for typical 2019-nCoV pneumonia: relationship to negative RT-PCR testing Clinical and computed tomographic imaging features of novel coronavirus pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific antibody responses in coronavirus disease patients Serological and molecular findings during SARS-CoV-2 infection: the first case study in Finland Longitudinal monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG seropositivity to detect COVID-19 Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19 Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients of novel coronavirus disease 2019 Kinetics of serologic responses to MERS coronavirus infection in humans Profiling early humoral response to diagnose novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Development of bullous retinal detachment during systemic corticosteroid treatment. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Comparison of four new commercial serologic assays for determination of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Diagnostic value and dynamic variance of serum antibody in coronavirus disease 2019 Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis Comparison of rapid antibody test and thorax computed tomography results in patients who underwent RT-PCR with the pre-diagnosis of COVID-19