Cargando…
Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial
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 conducte...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9955963/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36827328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282150 |
_version_ | 1784894476031885312 |
---|---|
author | Schwob, Jean-Marc Miauton, Alix Petrovic, Dusan Perdrix, Jean Senn, Nicolas Gouveia, Alexandre Jaton, Katia Opota, Onya Maillard, Alain Minghelli, Gianni Cornuz, Jacques Greub, Gilbert Genton, Blaise D’Acremont, Valérie |
author_facet | Schwob, Jean-Marc Miauton, Alix Petrovic, Dusan Perdrix, Jean Senn, Nicolas Gouveia, Alexandre Jaton, Katia Opota, Onya Maillard, Alain Minghelli, Gianni Cornuz, Jacques Greub, Gilbert Genton, Blaise D’Acremont, Valérie |
author_sort | Schwob, Jean-Marc |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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) ≥10(6) 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≥10(5) and 96.5% (93.6–98.3%) for those with VL≥10(6). Sensitivity of STANDARD-Q(®), Panbio™ and COVID-VIRO(®) 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≥10(6), 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<10(4) was detected by RDT. Specificity of RDT was 100% (99.3–100%) compared to any PCR. RDT sensitivity was similar <4 days (87.8%, 83.5–91.3%) and ≥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). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9955963 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99559632023-02-25 Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial Schwob, Jean-Marc Miauton, Alix Petrovic, Dusan Perdrix, Jean Senn, Nicolas Gouveia, Alexandre Jaton, Katia Opota, Onya Maillard, Alain Minghelli, Gianni Cornuz, Jacques Greub, Gilbert Genton, Blaise D’Acremont, Valérie PLoS One Research Article 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) ≥10(6) 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≥10(5) and 96.5% (93.6–98.3%) for those with VL≥10(6). Sensitivity of STANDARD-Q(®), Panbio™ and COVID-VIRO(®) 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≥10(6), 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<10(4) was detected by RDT. Specificity of RDT was 100% (99.3–100%) compared to any PCR. RDT sensitivity was similar <4 days (87.8%, 83.5–91.3%) and ≥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). Public Library of Science 2023-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9955963/ /pubmed/36827328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282150 Text en © 2023 Schwob et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Schwob, Jean-Marc Miauton, Alix Petrovic, Dusan Perdrix, Jean Senn, Nicolas Gouveia, Alexandre Jaton, Katia Opota, Onya Maillard, Alain Minghelli, Gianni Cornuz, Jacques Greub, Gilbert Genton, Blaise D’Acremont, Valérie Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial |
title | Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial |
title_full | Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial |
title_fullStr | Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial |
title_short | Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial |
title_sort | antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal pcr and saliva pcr to detect sars-cov-2: a prospective comparative clinical trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9955963/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36827328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282150 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schwobjeanmarc antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT miautonalix antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT petrovicdusan antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT perdrixjean antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT sennnicolas antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT gouveiaalexandre antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT jatonkatia antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT opotaonya antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT maillardalain antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT minghelligianni antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT cornuzjacques antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT greubgilbert antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT gentonblaise antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial AT dacremontvalerie antigenrapidtestsnasopharyngealpcrandsalivapcrtodetectsarscov2aprospectivecomparativeclinicaltrial |