PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Tom Jefferson
AU  - Madeleine Dietrich
AU  - Jon Brassey
AU  - Carl Heneghan
TI  - PCR Testing in the UK During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic – Evidence from FOI Requests
AID  - 10.1101/2022.04.28.22274341
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.04.28.22274341
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/29/2022.04.28.22274341.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/29/2022.04.28.22274341.full
AB  - Polymerase Chain Reaction (“PCR”) tests have been used to identify cases of COVID-19 during the course of the pandemic. Notably, PCR alone cannot differentiate between the presence of whole viruses (which can be transmitted and infect individuals) and small fragments of genetic material that are not infectious. A feature of PCR known as the cycle threshold (Ct) can be used to discriminate between these states, but the relationship between Ct and infectiousness is still poorly understood.This well-known limitation of the test compromises the identification of cases and their trends, and consequently those measures to interrupt transmission (such as isolation) that are undertaken on the basis of reliably identifying infectious individuals.Here, we interrogate the public authorities’ understanding of PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the UK by accessing Freedom of Information requests submitted in 2020-21.We searched WhatDoTheyKnow and found 300 FOI requests, from over 150 individuals. We grouped their questions into four themes addressing the number of tests in use, the reporting of cycle thresholds (‘Ct’), the Ct values themselves, and the accuracy of tests.The number of validated tests in use in the UK is currently not clear: In FOI responses, Public Health England (PHE) report it may be “80” or “85”. However, European regulations suggest there could be over 400 different CE marked tests available on the market and available for use. Laboratories have a statutory duty to report positive cases to PHE, but they do not have to advise which tests they are using nor submit Ct values. Only two FOI responses provided answers on Ct values, indicating that in a set time span, 24–38% of the Ct values were over 30. The most common FOI asked if there was a cycle threshold for positivity. In those that responded, the Ct for a positive result varied from 30 to 45. We found limited information on the technical accuracy of the tests. Several responses stated there is no ‘static’, ‘specific’ or ‘standard’ cycle threshold.The current system requires significant changes to ensure it offers accurate diagnostic data to enable effective clinical management of SARS-CoV-2. PCR is an important and powerful tool, but its systematic misuse and misreporting risk undermining its usefulness and credibility.Competing Interest StatementTJ's disclosure is available here: https://restoringtrials.org/competing-interests-tom-jefferson/. CH holds grant funding from the NIHR, the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR BRC Oxford and the World Health Organization for a series of Living rapid reviews on the modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 reference WHO registration No2020/1077093. He has received financial remuneration from an asbestos case and legal advice on mesh and hormone pregnancy tests cases. He has received expenses and fees for his media work, including periodic payments from the BBC, The Spectator, and other media outlets. He receives expenses for teaching EBM and is also paid for his G.P. work in NHS out of hours and regularly goes into care homes. He has also received income from publishing a series of toolkit books and appraising treatment recommendations in non-NHS settings. He is the Director of CEBM and is an NIHR Senior Investigator. He is co-director of the Global Centre for Healthcare and Urbanization based at Kellogg College at Oxford. He is a scientific advisor to Collateral Global that funds this review. JB is a significant shareholder in the Trip Database search engine (www.tripdatabase.com) and an employee. He has previously received funding from institutions such as WHO, NIHR. Collateral Global funds MD.Funding StatementThis review received funding from Collateral Global.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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.YesAll data included in the review are publicly available via Google Docs. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h2gmiN3kQaFGRy1QMQ8GL6va70UEQ4Fgf2l1PLmSpUc/edit?usp=sharing