PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Zeno Bisoffi AU - Elena Pomari AU - Michela Deiana AU - Chiara Piubelli AU - Niccolò Ronzoni AU - Anna Beltrame AU - Giulia Bertoli AU - Niccolò Riccardi AU - Francesca Perandin AU - Fabio Formenti AU - Federico Gobbi AU - Dora Buonfrate AU - Ronaldo Silva TI - Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of molecular and serological tests for COVID-19 AID - 10.1101/2020.08.09.20171355 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.08.09.20171355 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.08.09.20171355.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/11/2020.08.09.20171355.full AB - Accuracy of diagnostic tests is essential for suspected cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to assess the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) of molecular and serological tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A total of 346 consenting, adult patients were enrolled at the emergency room of IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Italy. We evaluated three RT-PCR methods including six different gene targets; five serologic rapid diagnostic tests (RDT); one ELISA test. The final classification of infected/not infected patients was performed using Latent Class Analysis in combination with clinical re-assessment of incongruous cases and was the basis for the main analysis of accuracy.Of 346 patients consecutively enrolled, 85 (24.6%) were classified as infected. The molecular test with the highest sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV was RQ-SARS-nCoV-2 with 91.8% (C.I. 83.8-96.6), 100% (C.I. 98.6-100.0), 100.0% (C.I. 95.4-100.0) and 97.4% (C.I. 94.7-98.9) respectively, followed by CDC 2019-nCoV with 76.2% (C.I. 65.7-84.8), 99.6% (C.I. 97.9-100.0), 98.5% (C.I. 91.7-100.0) and 92.9% (C.I. 89.2-95.6) and by in-house test targeting E-RdRp with 61.2% (C.I. 50.0-71.6), 99.6% (C.I. 97.9-100.0), 98.1% (C.I. 89.9-100.0) and 88.7% (C.I. 84.6-92.1). The analyses on single gene targets found the highest sensitivity for S and RdRp of the RQ-SARS-nCoV-2 (both with sensitivity 94.1%, C.I. 86.8-98.1). The in-house RdRp had the lowest sensitivity (62.4%, C.I. 51.2-72.6). The specificity ranged from 99.2% (C.I. 97.3-99.9) for in-house RdRp and N2 to 95.0% (C.I. 91.6-97.3) for E. The PPV ranged from 97.1% (C.I. 89.8-99.6) of N2 to 85.4% (C.I. 76.3-92.00) of E, and the NPV from 98.1% (C.I. 95.5-99.4) of gene S to 89.0% (C.I. 84.8-92.4) of in-house RdRp. All serological tests had <50% sensitivity and low PPV and NPV. One RDT (VivaDiag IgM) had high specificity (98.5%, with PPV 84.0%), but poor sensitivity (24.7%). Molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection showed excellent specificity, but significant differences in sensitivity. As expected, serological tests have limited utility in a clinical context.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialProspective study with ID ISRCTN13990999Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Fondi Ricerca corrente L1P6 to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical clearance The study protocol was approved by the pertinent Ethical Committee (Comitato Etico per la Sperimentazione clinica delle Province di Verona e Rovigo, Protocol N. 19408, 2nd April 2020 and following amendment, protocol N. 33102, approved on 10th June 2020). All the patients included gave their consent to the storage of biological samples in the Tropica Biobank and use of related results for research purposes, as per routine procedure in our hospital. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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).YesI 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 generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).