Utility of the FebriDx point-of-care assay in supporting a triage algorithm for medical admissions with possible COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a triage algorithm used to identify and isolate patients with suspected COVID-19 among medical patients needing admission to hospital using simple clinical criteria and the FebriDx assay. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort. SETTING: Large acute National Health Service hospital in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: All medical admissions from the emergency department between 10 August 2020 and 4 November 2020 with a valid SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result. INTERVENTIONS: Medical admissions were triaged as likely, possible or unlikely COVID-19 based on clinical criteria. Patients triaged as possible COVID-19 underwent FebriDx lateral flow assay on capillary blood, and those positive for myxovirus resistance protein A (a host response protein) were managed as likely COVID-19. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of the algorithm and the FebriDx assay using SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs as the reference standard. RESULTS: 4.0% (136) of 3443 medical admissions had RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19. Prevalence of COVID-19 was 46% (80/175) in those triaged as likely, 4.1% (50/1225) in possible and 0.3% (6/2033) in unlikely COVID-19. Using a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR reference standard, clinical triage had sensitivity of 96% (95% CI 91% to 98%) and specificity of 61.5% (95% CI 59.8% to 63.1%), while the triage algorithm including FebriDx had sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 87% to 96%) and specificity of 86.4% (95% CI 85.2% to 87.5%). While 2033 patients were deemed not to require isolation using clinical criteria alone, the addition of FebriDx to clinical triage allowed a further 826 patients to be released from isolation, reducing the need for isolation rooms by 9.5 per day, 95% CI 8.9 to 10.2. Ten patients missed by the algorithm had mild or asymptomatic COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: A triage algorithm including the FebriDx assay had good sensitivity and was useful to 'rule-out' COVID-19 among medical admissions to hospital.

False-negative RT-PCR for COVID-19 and a diagnostic risk score: a retrospective cohort study among patients admitted to hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 and false-negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), and develop and internally validate a diagnostic risk score to predict risk of COVID-19 (including RT-PCR-negative COVID-19) among medical admissions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two hospitals within an acute NHS Trust in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to medical wards between 2 March and 3 May 2020. OUTCOMES: Main outcomes were diagnosis of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results, sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and mortality during hospital admission. For the diagnostic risk score, we report discrimination, calibration and diagnostic accuracy of the model and simplified risk score and internal validation. RESULTS: 4008 patients were admitted between 2 March and 3 May 2020. 1792 patients (44.8%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 1391 were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive and 283 had only negative RT-PCRs. Compared with a clinical reference standard, sensitivity of RT-PCR in hospital patients was 83.1% (95% CI 81.2%-84.8%). Broadly, patients with false-negative RT-PCR COVID-19 and those confirmed by positive PCR had similar demographic and clinical characteristics but lower risk of intensive care unit admission and lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.61). A simple diagnostic risk score comprising of age, sex, ethnicity, cough, fever or shortness of breath, National Early Warning Score 2, C reactive protein and chest radiograph appearance had moderate discrimination (area under the receiver-operator curve 0.83, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.85), good calibration and was internally validated. CONCLUSION: RT-PCR-negative COVID-19 is common and is associated with lower mortality despite similar presentation. Diagnostic risk scores could potentially help triage patients requiring admission but need external validation.