Abstract
Importance In the COVID-19 pandemic, a limiting barrier for more successful approaches to COVID-19 is the lack of appropriate timing for its diagnosis, during the viral replication stage, when antiviral approaches could demonstrate efficacy, precluding progression to severe stages. Three major reasons that hamper the diagnosis earlier in the disease are the unspecific and mild symptoms in the first stage, the cost- and time-limitations of the rtPCR-SARS-CoV-2, and the insufficient sensitivity of this test as desired for screening purposes during the pandemic. More sensitive and earlier methods of COVID-19 detection should be considered as key for breakthrough changes in the disease course and response to specific therapeutic strategies. Our objective was to propose a clinical scoring for the diagnosis of COVID-19 (The AndroCoV Clinical Scoring for COVID-19 Diagnosis) that has been validated in a large population sample, aiming to encourage the management of patients with high pre-clinical likelihood of presenting COVID-19, at least during the pandemics, independent of a rtPCR-SARS-COV-2 test.
Materials and methods This is a compounded retrospective and prospective analysis of clinical data prospectively collected from the Pre-AndroCoV and AndroCov Trials that resulted in a clinical scoring for COVID-19 diagnosis based on likelihood of presenting COVID-19 according to the number of symptoms, presence of anosmia, and known positive household contact, in a variety of combinations of scoring criteria, aiming to the detect scorings that provided the highest pre-test probability and accuracy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and accuracy were calculated for subjects screened in two different periods and altogether, for females, males, and both, in a total of nine different scenarios, for combinations between one, two, or three or more symptoms, or presence of anosmia in subjects without known positive household contacts, and no symptoms, one, two, or three or more symptoms, or presence of anosmia or ageusia in subjects with known positive household contacts.
Results 1,757 patients were screened for COVID-19. Among the multiple combinations, requiring two or more symptoms with or without anosmia or ageusia for subjects without known contact and one or more symptoms with or without anosmia or ageusia with known positive contacts presented the highest accuracy (80.4%), and higher pretest probability and accuracy than virtually all rtPCR-SARS-CoV-2 commercially available kit tests.
Conclusion The AndroCoV Clinical Scoring for COVID-19 Diagnosis was demonstrated to be a feasible, quick, inexpensive and sensitive diagnostic tool for clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. A clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 should avoid delays and missed diagnosis, and reduce costs, and should therefore be recommended as a first-line option for COVID-19 diagnosis for public health policies, at least while SARS-CoV-2 is the prevailing circulating virus.
Question Is a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 sensitive, accurate, and feasible?
Findings The present analysis of a 1,757-subject cohort of the AndroCoV trials demonstrated that clinical scoring for COVID-19 diagnosis can deliver a more sensitive and prompter diagnosis than the current gold-standard diagnostic method, rtPCR-SARS-CoV-2, with an accuracy above 80%.
Meaning A clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 avoids missed diagnosis due to insufficient sensitivity or incorrect timing of the performance of rtPCR-SARS-CoV-2, reduces costs, avoid delays on specific managements, and allows the testing of potentially effective antiviral therapeutic approaches that should work if administered in the early stage of COVID-19
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT04446429
Funding Statement
The funding of present study was fully supported by Corpometria Institute (Brasilia, DF, Brazil) and Applied Biology Inc (Irvine, CA, USA).
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:
The study was approved by an ethics committee and registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04446429), and also approved by Brazilian National Ethics Committee (Approval number 4.173.074; CAAE 34110420.2.0000.0008; Comite de Etica em Pesquisa (CEP) of the Comite Nacional de Etica em Pesquisa (CONEP) of the Ministry of Health (MS)) (CEP/CONEP/MS).
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
Data Availability
Full raw data of the observational AndroCoV trials are available at a public repository, in the following electronic address: https://osf.io/cm4f8/, that has been made public available. Data from the AndroCoV RCTs and for the present study are available under request to flavio.cadegiani{at}unifesp.br.
List of abbreviations
- PPV
- positive predictive value
- NPV
- negative predictive value
- rtPCR
- real-time polymerase chain reaction
- COVID-19
- infection caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)
- SARS-CoV-2
- Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)
