Sensitivity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract samples for SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study

Objectives To determine the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR testing of upper respiratory tract (URT) samples from hospitalised patients with COVID-19, compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis. Methods All URT RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 in NHS Lothian, Scotland, United Kingdom between the 7th of February and 19th April 2020 (inclusive) was reviewed, and hospitalised patients were identified. All URT RT-PCR tests were analysed for each patient to determine the sequence of negative and positive results. For those who were tested twice or more but never received a positive result, case records were reviewed, and a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 allocated based on clinical features, discharge diagnosis, and radiology and haematology results. For those who had negative URT RT-PCR tests but a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, respiratory samples were retested using a multiplex respiratory panel, a second SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay, and a human RNase P control. Results Compared to the gold standard of a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, the sensitivity of an initial URT RT-PCR for COVID-19 was 82.2% (95% confidence interval 79.0-85.1%). Two consecutive URT RT-PCR tests increased sensitivity to 90.6% (CI 88.0-92.7%). A further 2.2% and 0.9% of patients who received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 were positive on a third and fourth test. Conclusions The sensitivity of a single RT-PCR test of an URT sample in hospitalised patients is 82.2%. Sensitivity increases to 90.6% when patients are tested twice. A proportion of cases with clinically defined COVID-19 never test positive on URT RT-PCR despite repeated testing. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement TCW is the recipient of a Wellcome Trust Award [204802/Z/16/Z] ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: South East Scotland Scottish Academic Health Sciences Collaboration Human Annotated BioResource reference no. 10/S1402/33 All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived. Yes I 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. Yes NA