Comparative Analysis of Sars-Cov-2 Detection Methods Using Stool, Blood, and Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples

Abstract

As a public health policy, the ongoing global coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination drives require continuous tracking, tracing, and testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Diagnostic testing is important in virus detection and understanding its spread for timely intervention. This is especially important for low-income settings where the majority of the population remains untested. This is well supported by the fact that of about 9% of the Kenyan population had been tested for the virus.This was a cross-sectional study conducted at the Kisumu and Siaya Referral Hospitals in Kenya. Here we report on the sensitivity and specificity of the rapid antigen detection test (Ag-RDT) of SARS-CoV-2 compared with the quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) using stool and nasopharyngeal swab samples. Further, the mean Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in western Kenya were evaluated.The sensitivity and specificity of Ag-RDT were 76.3% (95% CI, 59.8-88.6%) and 96.3% (95% CI, 87.3-99.5%) with a negative and positive predictive value of 85% (95% CI, 73.8%-93.0%) and 93% (95% CI, 78.6%-99.2%) respectively. There was substantial agreement of 88% (Kappa value of 0.75, 95% CI, 0.74-0.77) between Ag-RDT and nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR, and between stool and nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR results (83.7% agreement, Kapa value 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.80). The mean IgM and IgG antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 were not different in asymptomatic individuals, 1.11 (95% CI, 0.78-1.44) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.65-1.11) compared to symptomatic individuals 4.30 (95% CI 3.30-5.31) and 4.16 (95% CI 3.32 -5.00). The choice of an appropriate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic, screening, and surveillance test should be guided by the specific study needs and a rational approach for optimal results.