» Articles » PMID: 32866113

Frequency of Serological Non-responders and False-negative RT-PCR Results in SARS-CoV-2 Testing: a Population-based Study

Abstract

Objectives The sensitivity of molecular and serological methods for COVID-19 testing in an epidemiological setting is not well described. The aim of the study was to determine the frequency of negative RT-PCR results at first clinical presentation as well as negative serological results after a follow-up of at least 3 weeks. Methods Among all patients seen for suspected COVID-19 in Liechtenstein (n=1921), we included initially RT-PCR positive index patients (n=85) as well as initially RT-PCR negative (n=66) for follow-up with SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Antibodies were detected with seven different commercially available immunoassays. Frequencies of negative RT-PCR and serology results in individuals with COVID-19 were determined and compared to those observed in a validation cohort of Swiss patients (n=211). Results Among COVID-19 patients in Liechtenstein, false-negative RT-PCR at initial presentation was seen in 18% (12/66), whereas negative serology in COVID-19 patients was 4% (3/85). The validation cohort showed similar frequencies: 2/66 (3%) for negative serology, and 16/155 (10%) for false negative RT-PCR. COVID-19 patients with negative follow-up serology tended to have a longer disease duration (p=0.05) and more clinical symptoms than other patients with COVID-19 (p<0.05). The antibody titer from quantitative immunoassays was positively associated with the number of disease symptoms and disease duration (p<0.001). Conclusions RT-PCR at initial presentation in patients with suspected COVID-19 can miss infected patients. Antibody titers of SARS-CoV-2 assays are linked to the number of disease symptoms and the duration of disease. One in 25 patients with RT-PCR-positive COVID-19 does not develop antibodies detectable with frequently employed and commercially available immunoassays.

Citing Articles

Examination of SARS-CoV-2 serological test results from multiple commercial and laboratory platforms with an in-house serum panel.

Lester S, Stumpf M, Freeman B, Mills L, Schiffer J, Semenova V Access Microbiol. 2024; 6(2).

PMID: 38482357 PMC: 10928395. DOI: 10.1099/acmi.0.000463.v4.


Model based on COVID-19 evidence to predict and improve pandemic control.

Gonzalez R, Moya P, Bringa E, Bacigalupe G, Ramirez-Santana M, Kiwi M PLoS One. 2023; 18(6):e0286747.

PMID: 37319168 PMC: 10270358. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286747.


The correlation between IgM and IgG antibodies with blood profile in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus.

Alibolandi Z, Ostadian A, Sayyah S, Haddad Kashani H, Ehteram H, Banafshe H Clin Mol Allergy. 2022; 20(1):15.

PMID: 36550478 PMC: 9774079. DOI: 10.1186/s12948-022-00180-1.


Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Fox T, Geppert J, Dinnes J, Scandrett K, Bigio J, Sulis G Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 11():CD013652.

PMID: 36394900 PMC: 9671206. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013652.pub2.


Results from Canton Grisons of Switzerland suggest repetitive testing reduces SARS-CoV-2 incidence (February-March 2021).

Gorji H, Lunati I, Rudolf F, Vidondo B, Hardt W, Jenny P Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):19538.

PMID: 36376420 PMC: 9663184. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-23986-0.