Data Entry: Please note that the research database will be replaced by UNIverse by the end of October 2023. Please enter your data into the system https://universe-intern.unibas.ch. Thanks

Login for users with Unibas email account...

Login for registered users without Unibas email account...

 
Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: a prospective comparative clinical trial
JournalArticle (Originalarbeit in einer wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift)
 
ID 4663695
Author(s) Schwob, J. M.; Miauton, A.; Petrovic, D.; Perdrix, J.; Senn, N.; Gouveia, A.; Jaton, K.; Opota, O.; Maillard, A.; Minghelli, G.; Cornuz, J.; Greub, G.; Genton, B.; D'Acremont, V.
Author(s) at UniBasel D'Acremont, Valérie
Year 2023
Title Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: a prospective comparative clinical trial
Journal PLoS One
Volume 18
Number 2
Pages / Article-Number e0282150
Keywords Humans; *SARS-CoV-2; Prospective Studies; Saliva; *covid-19; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Sensitivity and Specificity; Antigens, Viral; COVID-19 Testing
Mesh terms Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Prospective Studies; Saliva; COVID-19; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Sensitivity and Specificity; Antigens, Viral; COVID-19 Testing
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).
ISSN/ISBN 1932-6203 (Electronic)1932-6203 (Linking)
URL https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282150
edoc-URL https://edoc.unibas.ch/93862/
Full Text on edoc Available
Digital Object Identifier DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0282150
PubMed ID http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36827328
ISI-Number MEDLINE:36827328
Document type (ISI) Journal Article
 
   

MCSS v5.8 PRO. 0.351 sec, queries - 0.000 sec ©Universität Basel  |  Impressum   |    
24/04/2024