Analyzing inherent biases in SARS-CoV-2 PCR and serological epidemiologic metrics

Background

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in late 2019 [1] and resulted in a pandemic [2]. As the number of laboratory-confirmed cases and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related deaths continue to rise [2], this virus will persist as a global public health concern.

At present, the main diagnostic modality for SARS-CoV-2 is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which is typically performed on either an upper or lower respiratory tract sample. Current understanding of the infection course suggests a latent phase of few days, followed by an infectious phase also of few days before recovery [1, 3-6]. Individuals infected with the virus test positive by PCR if tested during these first two stages, but also can test positive during the recovery stage for 2-4 weeks, reflecting genetic remnants of the virus [7, 8]. The latter duration defines the prolonged PCR positivity duration following end of infectiousness.

Individuals recovered from this infection also typically do not develop detectable IgG antibodies immediately, but 2-4 weeks thereafter [7, 8]. The latter duration defines the pre-antibody positivity duration following end of infectiousness.

The presence of the prolonged PCR positivity duration and the pre-antibody positivity duration can complicate the epidemiological inferences drawn from population-based testing by PCR and serological assays. Using mathematical modeling simulations, the aim of the present study is to analyze how these durations can bias the key epidemiological metrics that are used to track and monitor SARS-CoV-2 epidemics, for the purpose of improving interpretation of PCR and serological testing data and our understanding of local epidemics, but also for better management of the adverse implications of the social and physical distancing restrictions.

Methods

Results

Figure 1 shows the simulated daily number of PCR-positive diagnosed cases in the scenario that PCR positivity measures true active infection presence in the population compared to the actually-observed scenario in presence of the prolonged PCR positivity. There is a lag of 10 days between the true peak in infection incidence and the actually-observed peak in infection incidence when R₀ is 1.6, and a lag of 5 days when R₀ is 3.0. Moreover, the scenario incorporating the prolonged PCR positivity results in more cases being diagnosed than the scenario in which infected individuals are PCR positive only during active infection.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Effect of the prolonged PCR positivity on the observed trend of diagnosed cases.

Daily number of new diagnosed cases of true active infection versus the actually-observed diagnosed cases in presence of the prolonged PCR positivity. The prolonged PCR positivity is assumed to last on average for three weeks after end of infectiousness [7, 8]. Two scenarios are presented, one for an R₀ of 1.6 (an epidemic in presence of social and physical distancing interventions) and an R₀ of 3.0 (natural course of the epidemic in absence of any social or physical distancing interventions).

Figure 2 shows the ratio of the proportion of tests that are PCR positive (“positivity rate”) in presence of the prolonged PCR positivity divided by the proportion of tests that are PCR positive assuming no prolonged PCR positivity. This ratio is shown assuming a prolonged PCR positivity duration of 2, 3, 4, or 6 weeks. Prior to the epidemic peak, the proportion of tests that are PCR positive in presence of the prolonged PCR positivity is 2-fold higher than that assuming no prolonged PCR positivity. Meanwhile, after the epidemic peak, the ratio of the two proportions steadily increases and is higher the longer is the prolonged PCR positivity—that is more and more of the infections are diagnosed not during active infection, but during the prolonged PCR positivity stage. These results were generated assuming an R₀ of 1.6, and the results assuming an R₀ of 3.0 show the same pattern (Appendix Figure S2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Effect of the prolonged PCR positivity on the observed SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate.

Ratio of the proportion of tests that are PCR positive (“positivity rate”) in presence of the prolonged PCR positivity over the proportion of tests that are PCR positive assuming no prolonged PCR positivity. The prolonged PCR positivity is assumed to last on average for 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks. In this epidemic simulation, R₀ has a value of 1.6, that is an epidemic time course in presence of social and physical distancing interventions. The simulation for R₀ of 3.0, that is for the natural course of the epidemic in absence of any social or physical distancing interventions, is found in Figure S2.

Figure 3 presents the difference in days between the epidemic peak as measured in presence of the prolonged PCR positivity and the epidemic peak based on true incidence of active infection in the population, assuming a prolonged PCR positivity duration of 2, 3, 4, or 6 weeks. The delay between the true epidemic peak and the observed epidemic peak increased as the duration of prolonged PCR positivity increased. This delay ranged from 7.5 days up to 16.5 days at an R₀ of 1.6, and from 4.5 days up to 8.0 days at an R₀ of 3.0.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Effect of the prolonged PCR positivity on the observed SARS-CoV-2 epidemic peak.

Time difference between the actually-observed epidemic peak in presence of the prolonged PCR positivity and the true epidemic peak based on true incidence of active infection in the population. The prolonged PCR positivity is assumed to last on average for 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks. Two scenarios are presented, one for an R₀ of 1.6 (an epidemic in presence of social and physical distancing interventions) and an R₀ of 3.0 (natural course of the epidemic in absence of any social or physical distancing interventions).

Figure 4 and Figure S3 of the Appendix illustrate the change throughout the epidemic in the proportion of those who test positive by PCR and are latently infected, infectious, or post- infectious (that is in the prolonged PCR positivity stage) for R₀ = 1.6 and R₀ = 3.0, respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Effect of the prolonged PCR positivity on distribution of those latently infected, infectious, and post-infectious.

Proportion of new diagnoses who are in latent infection, stage of infectiousness, or stage of prolonged PCR positivity. The prolonged PCR positivity is assumed to last on average for three weeks after end of infectiousness [7, 8]. In this epidemic simulation, R₀ has a value of 1.6, that is an epidemic time course in presence of social and physical distancing interventions. The simulation for R₀ of 3.0, that is for the natural course of the epidemic in absence of any social or physical distancing interventions, is found in Figure S3.

For R₀ = 1.6, prior to the epidemic peak, approximately half of those who test positive by PCR are in the prolonged PCR positivity stage (that is already recovered from the infection). After the epidemic peak, this proportion rises steeply as the epidemic begins to decline. A similar pattern is seen for R₀ = 3.0 (Figure S3 of the Appendix).

Figure S4 of the Appendix shows the estimated R₀ as derived from the epidemic curve of diagnosed cases in presence and in absence of the prolonged PCR positivity. Two scenarios are presented, the first for an R₀ of 1.6, and the second for an R₀ of 3.0, and each factoring a prolonged PCR positivity duration of 2, 3, 4, or 6 weeks. The estimated R₀ from the actually-observed diagnosed cases is always lower than that estimated from the true (active infection) diagnosed cases, but the difference is small, particularly so for the case of R₀ of 1.6, and is not much affected by the duration of the prolonged PCR positivity.

Figure 5 shows the trend in the true prevalence of ever infection in the population versus the actually-observed seroprevalence factoring the 3 weeks average delay in the development of detectable antibodies [7, 8]. Two scenarios are presented, the first for an R₀ of 1.6 and the second for an R₀ of 3.0. There is a time delay in the actually-observed seroprevalence reaching the true prevalence of ever infection in the population, and this delay varies with time reflecting the epidemic phase (particularly closeness to the epidemic peak) and the intensity of the epidemic (value of R₀).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Effect of delay in development of detectable antibodies on observed seroprevalence in cross-sectional surveys.

Trend in the true prevalence of ever infection in the population versus the actually-observed seroprevalence factoring the 3 weeks average delay in the development of detectable antibodies [7, 8]. Two scenarios are presented, one for an R₀ of 1.6 (an epidemic in presence of social and physical distancing interventions) and an R₀ of 3.0 (natural course of the epidemic in absence of any social or physical distancing interventions).

Discussion

Management of an epidemic depends on availability of high quality real-time data in order to make the best decisions. Above results show that presence of the prolonged PCR positivity, one of the distinctive features of the SARS-CoV-2 infection reflecting the presence of genetic remnants of the virus in those who cleared their infection [7, 8], biases the epidemiological metrics and inferences drawn from the trend of PCR-positive diagnosed cases. While the prolonged PCR positivity allows more infections to be diagnosed (Figure 1), it biases assessment of the epidemic phase. The true phase of the epidemic (epidemic peak and also epidemic growth or decline) occurs 1-2 weeks before the actually-observed phase of the epidemic (Figures 1 and 3). This implies that the trend in PCR-positive diagnosed cases does not reflect the current status of the epidemic, but the status 1-2 weeks earlier. However, the prolonged PCR positivity does not appreciably bias the derivation of R₀ from the actually-observed trend in diagnosed cases (Appendix Figure S4).

The prolonged PCR positivity also biases the testing positivity rate. The actually-observed positivity rate is 2-fold higher than the true positivity rate of active infection during the epidemic growth phase, and several folds higher during the epidemic decline phase (Figure 2). As the epidemic declines, the value of the positivity rate in conveying the actual epidemic dynamics erodes steadily with time. Moreover, during the epidemic growth phase, as much as half of those who test positive by PCR are in the prolonged PCR positivity stage having already recovered from the infection. During the epidemic decline phase, increasingly most of those testing positive are found in the prolonged PCR positivity stage and not in active infection (Figure 4). Remarkably, at all times, those newly diagnosed with the infection are likely to be found in a non-infectious stage.

Above results demonstrate that the documented time delay in development of detectable antibodies [7, 8] biases measures of seroprevalence that are derived from cross-sectional surveys of the population. At all times prior to end of the epidemic cycle, actually-observed seroprevalence underestimates true prevalence of ever infection in the population (Figure 5). The difference between what is actually observed and what is true is most pronounced around the epidemic peak. This finding demonstrates that current seroprevalence studies can significantly underestimate actual infection exposure in the population at large; an important consideration given that communities are increasingly undertaking sero-surveys to understand better virus spread and to develop efficient plans for managing the hefty costs of the social and physical distancing restrictions on society and economy.

This study has limitations. PCR testing was assumed random, but in reality this depends on the actual testing policy that is enforced in any setting. For instance, administering PCR testing to only those presenting with clinical symptoms will differentially bias detection towards those who acquired the infection within the last 5-10 days. The above results thus need to be complemented with further analysis for each specific setting to factor the actually-enforced testing policy. While the prolonged PCR positivity and the time delay in development of detectable antibodies are well-established in the literature [7, 8], it is still not sufficiently known how these are distributed in the population by age and sex, factors that may influence these effects and their impact on epidemiological measures. Epidemiological metrics can also be biased by other aspects of PCR and antibody testing, such as assay sensitivity and specificity, which are not investigated in the present study.

Conclusions

The prolonged PCR positivity observed in SARS-CoV-2 infected persons and the time delay in development of detectable antibodies can bias key epidemiological metrics used to track and monitor SARS-CoV-2 epidemics leading to implications for managing the social and physical distancing restrictions. Caution is warranted in interpreting PCR and serological testing data, and any drawn inferences need to factor these biases for an accurate assessment of epidemic dynamics. These findings also suggest that analysis of PCR and serological testing data should not only be based on dichotomous outcomes (positive versus negative), but should also factor the quantitative measures of PCR and serological assays (such as PCR cycle threshold and antibody optical density values) to improve interpretation of these metrics.

List of abbreviations

SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019

PCR

Polymerase chain reaction

Declarations

Author’s contributors

MM constructed and coded the mathematical model and conducted the analyses. HA parametrized the model. FMA and LJA wrote the first draft of the paper. HC and SS supported model development and parametrization. LJA conceived and led the design of the study, construct and parameterization of the mathematical model, and drafting of the article. All authors contributed to results interpretation, discussion, and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest

Disclose funding received for this work

Others