Abstract
Real time fluorescent quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) is widely used as the gold standard for clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2. However, due to the low viral load in patient throats and the limitations of RT-PCR, significant numbers of false negative reports are inevitable, which results in failure to timely diagnose, early treat, cut off transmission, and assess discharge criteria. To improve this situation, an optimized droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used for detection of SARS-CoV-2, which showed that the limit of detection of ddPCR is significantly lower than that of RT-PCR. We further explored the feasibility of ddPCR to detect SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid from 77 clinical throat swab samples, including 63 suspected outpatients with fever and 14 supposed convalescents who were about to discharge after treatment, and compared with RT-PCR in terms of the diagnostic accuracy. In this double-blind study, we tested, surveyed subsequently and statistically analyzed 77 clinical samples. According to our study, 26 samples from COVID-19 patients with RT-PCR negative were detected as positive by ddPCR. No FPRs of RT-PCR and ddPCR were observed. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, NLR and accuracy were improved from 40% (95% CI: 27–55%), 100% (95% CI: 54–100%), 100%, 16% (95% CI: 13–19%), 0.6 (95% CI: 0.48–0.75) and 47% (95% CI: 33–60%) for RT-PCR to 94% (95% CI: 83–99%), 100% (95% CI: 48–100%), 100%, 63% (95% CI: 36–83%), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02–0.18) and 95% (95% CI: 84–99%) for ddPCR, respectively. Moreover, 14 (42.9 %) convalescents still carry detectable SARS-CoV-2 after discharge. Overall, ddPCR shows superiority for clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 to reduce the false negative reports, which could be a powerful complement to the current standard RT-PCR. It also suggests that the current clinical practice that the convalescent after discharge continues to be quarantined for at least 2 weeks is completely necessary which can prevent potential viral transmission.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
This study does not contain a clinical trial.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by Special Fund for COVID-19 Research of Wuhan University, China National Science and Technology Major Project (2018ZX10733403), China NSFC grants (32041007) and Wuhan COVID-19 Emergency Science and Technology Project (2020020201010012). The research was designed, conducted, analyzed, and interpreted by the authors entirely independently of the funding sources. The researchers confirm their independence from funders and sponsors.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
