edoc

Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: a prospective comparative clinical trial

Schwob, J. M. and Miauton, A. and Petrovic, D. and Perdrix, J. and Senn, N. and Gouveia, A. and Jaton, K. and Opota, O. and Maillard, A. and Minghelli, G. and Cornuz, J. and Greub, G. and Genton, B. and D'Acremont, V.. (2023) Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: a prospective comparative clinical trial. PLoS One, 18 (2). e0282150.

[img] PDF - Published Version
Available under License CC BY (Attribution).

1501Kb

Official URL: https://edoc.unibas.ch/93862/

Downloads: Statistics Overview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs), saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR have shown different performance characteristics to detect patients infected by SARS-CoV-2, according to the viral load (VL)-and thus transmissibility. METHODS: In October 2020, we conducted a prospective trial involving patients presenting at testing centres with symptoms of COVID-19. We compared detection rates and performance of RDT, saliva PCR and nasopharyngeal (NP) PCR, according to VL and symptoms duration. RESULTS: Out of 949 patients enrolled, 928 patients had all three tests performed. Detection rates were 35.2% (95%CI 32.2-38.4%) by RDT, 39.8% (36.6-43.0%) by saliva PCR, 40.1% (36.9-43.3%) by NP PCR, and 41.5% (38.3-44.7%) by any test. For those with viral loads (VL) >/=106 copies/ml, detection rates were 30.3% (27.3-33.3), 31.4% (28.4-34.5), 31.5% (28.5-34.6), and 31.6% (28.6-34.7%) respectively. Sensitivity of RDT compared to NP PCR was 87.4% (83.6-90.6%) for all positive patients, 94.5% (91.5-96.7%) for those with VL>/=105 and 96.5% (93.6-98.3%) for those with VL>/=106. Sensitivity of STANDARD-Q(R), Panbio and COVID-VIRO(R) Ag tests were 92.9% (86.4-96.9%), 86.1% (78.6-91.7%) and 84.1% (76.9-89.7%), respectively. For those with VL>/=106, sensitivity was 96.6% (90.5-99.3%), 97.8% (92.1-99.7%) and 95.3% (89.4-98.5%) respectively. No patient with VL<104 was detected by RDT. Specificity of RDT was 100% (99.3-100%) compared to any PCR. RDT sensitivity was similar /=4 days (85.7%, 75.9-92.6%) after symptoms onset (p = 0.6). Sensitivity of saliva and NP PCR were 95.7% (93.1-97.5%) and 96.5% (94.1-98.1%), respectively, compared to the other PCR. CONCLUSIONS: RDT results allow rapid identification of COVID cases with immediate isolation of most contagious individuals. RDT can thus be a game changer both in ambulatory care and community testing aimed at stopping transmission chains, and even more so in resource-constrained settings thanks to its very low price. When PCR is performed, saliva could replace NP swabbing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04613310 (03/11/2020).
Faculties and Departments:09 Associated Institutions > Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH)
09 Associated Institutions > Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH) > Department of Medicine (MED) > Clinical Research (Reither)
UniBasel Contributors:D'Acremont, Valérie
Item Type:Article, refereed
Article Subtype:Research Article
ISSN:1932-6203 (Electronic)1932-6203 (Linking)
Note:Publication type according to Uni Basel Research Database: Journal article
Language:English
Related URLs:
Identification Number:
edoc DOI:
Last Modified:06 Mar 2023 09:33
Deposited On:06 Mar 2023 09:33

Repository Staff Only: item control page