Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
26
01
2022
accepted:
07
01
2023
entrez:
24
2
2023
pubmed:
25
2
2023
medline:
3
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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®, 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≥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 (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. 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. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04613310 (03/11/2020).
Sections du résumé
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®, 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≥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 (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).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36827328
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282150
pii: PONE-D-22-01943
pmc: PMC9955963
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, Viral
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04613310']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0282150Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Schwob et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Lancet. 2021 Apr 17;397(10283):1425-1427
pubmed: 33609444
Pathog Dis. 2020 Nov 11;78(8):
pubmed: 33030200
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Aug 04;7:465
pubmed: 32903849
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 3;383(23):e126
pubmed: 33085856
BMC Infect Dis. 2018 Dec 29;18(1):707
pubmed: 30594124
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Mar;27(3):472.e7-472.e10
pubmed: 33189872
PLoS Med. 2009 Jan 6;6(1):e252
pubmed: 19127974
J Infect. 2020 Jul;81(1):e45-e50
pubmed: 32298676
Microbes Infect. 2020 Nov - Dec;22(10):617-621
pubmed: 32911086
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Jan;31:100677
pubmed: 33521610
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Jun 25;58(7):1070-1076
pubmed: 32172228
Future Microbiol. 2016;11(3):403-25
pubmed: 27028061
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Nov 01;180(11):1447-1452
pubmed: 32780793
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Sep 1;95(9):639-645
pubmed: 28867844
Euro Surveill. 2020 May;25(21):
pubmed: 32489175
J Infect. 2021 Mar;82(3):391-398
pubmed: 33592253
N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 24;383(13):1283-1286
pubmed: 32857487
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;20(8):911-919
pubmed: 32353347
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 17;71(10):2663-2666
pubmed: 32442256
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jul 1;73(1):148-150
pubmed: 32761228
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 18;384(7):671-673
pubmed: 33503337
Am J Otolaryngol. 2021 Jan - Feb;42(1):102777
pubmed: 33125907
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 26;8:CD013705
pubmed: 32845525
Lancet Microbe. 2021 Jul;2(7):e311-e319
pubmed: 33846704
Swiss Med Wkly. 2020 Mar 19;150:w20225
pubmed: 32191813
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jun 1;72(11):e921
pubmed: 32986798
Viruses. 2020 Nov 17;12(11):
pubmed: 33212817
J Med Virol. 2021 May;93(5):3268-3272
pubmed: 33527375
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Aug 24;58(9):
pubmed: 32636214
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;26(10):2494-2497
pubmed: 32603290
Virol J. 2020 Nov 13;17(1):177
pubmed: 33187528
J Clin Virol. 2020 Nov;132:104652
pubmed: 33053493