PCR combined with serologic testing improves the yield and efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 infection hunting: A study in 40,689 consecutive overseas arrivals

Background The global epidemiological situation of COVID-19 remains serious. The rapid hunting of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the key means for preventing transmission. Methods A total of 40,689 consecutive overseas arrivals were screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on PCR and serologic testing. The yield and efficiency of different screening algorithms were evaluated. Result Among the 40,689 consecutive overseas arrivals, 56 (0.14%) subjects were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. The asymptomatic rate was 76.8%. When the algorithm based on PCR alone was used, the identification yield of a single round of PCR (PCR1) was only 39.3% (95% CI: 26.1–52.5%). It took at least four rounds of PCR to achieve a yield of 92.9% (95% CI: 85.9–99.8%). Fortunately, an algorithm based on a single round of PCR combined with a single round of serologic testing (PCR1+ Ab1) greatly improved the screening yield to 98.2% (95% CI: 94.6–100.0%) and required 42,299 PCR and 40,689 serologic tests that cost 6,052,855 yuan. By achieving a similar yield, the cost of PCR1+ Ab1 was 39.2% of that of four rounds of PCR. For hunting one case in PCR1+ Ab1, 769 PCR and 740 serologic tests were required, costing 110,052 yuan, which was 63.0% of that of the PCR1 algorithm. Conclusion Comparing an algorithm based on PCR alone, PCR combined with a serologic testing algorithm greatly improved the yield and efficiency of the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PCR combined with serologic testing improves the yield and efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 infection hunting: A study in 40,689 consecutive overseas arrivals.

Background: The global epidemiological situation of COVID-19 remains serious. The rapid hunting of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the key means for preventing transmission. Methods: A total of 40,689 consecutive overseas arrivals were screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on PCR and serologic testing. The yield and efficiency of different screening algorithms were evaluated. Result: Among the 40,689 consecutive overseas arrivals, 56 (0.14%) subjects were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. The asymptomatic rate was 76.8%. When the algorithm based on PCR alone was used, the identification yield of a single round of PCR (PCR1) was only 39.3% (95% CI: 26.1-52.5%). It took at least four rounds of PCR to achieve a yield of 92.9% (95% CI: 85.9-99.8%). Fortunately, an algorithm based on a single round of PCR combined with a single round of serologic testing (PCR1+ Ab1) greatly improved the screening yield to 98.2% (95% CI: 94.6-100.0%) and required 42,299 PCR and 40,689 serologic tests that cost 6,052,855 yuan. By achieving a similar yield, the cost of PCR1+ Ab1 was 39.2% of that of four rounds of PCR. For hunting one case in PCR1+ Ab1, 769 PCR and 740 serologic tests were required, costing 110,052 yuan, which was 63.0% of that of the PCR1 algorithm. Conclusion: Comparing an algorithm based on PCR alone, PCR combined with a serologic testing algorithm greatly improved the yield and efficiency of the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unspecific reactivity must be excluded in COVID-19 epidemiological analyses or virus tracing based on serologic testing: Analysis of 46,777 post-pandemic samples and 1,114 pre-pandemic samples

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Serologic testing is complementary to nucleic acid screening to identify SARS-CoV-2. This study aimed to evaluate unspecific reactivity in SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Materials and methods Total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from 46,777 subjects who were screened for SARS-CoV-2 were retrospectively studied to evaluate the incidence and characteristics of the unspecific reactivity. A total of 1,114 pre-pandemic samples were also analysed to compare unspecific reactivity. Results The incidence of unspecific reactivity in anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody testing was 0.361% in 46,777 post-pandemic samples, similar to the incidence of 0.359% (4/1,114) in 1,114 pre-pandemic samples (p = 0.990). Subjects ≥ 19 years old had a 2.753-fold [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.130–6.706] higher probability of unspecific reactivity than subjects < 19 years old (p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between the sexes. The unspecific reactivity was associated with 14 categories within the disease spectrum, with three tops being the skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases (0.93%), respiratory system diseases (0.78%) and neoplasms diseases (0.76%). The percentage of patients with a titer ≥ 13.87 cut-off index (COI) in the unspecific reactivity was 7.69%. Conclusion Our results suggest a unspecific reactivity incidence rate of 0.361% involving 14 categories on the disease spectrum. Unspecific reactivity needs to be excluded when performing serologic antibody testing in COVID-19 epidemiological analyses or virus tracing.