Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

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

Jean Marc Schwob, Alix Miauton, Dusan Petrovic, Jean Perdrix, Nicolas Senn, Katia Jaton, Opota Onya, Alain Maillard, Gianni Minghelli, Jacques Cornuz, Gilbert Greub, Blaise Genton, Valérie D’Acremont
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.23.20237057
Jean Marc Schwob
1Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alix Miauton
1Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dusan Petrovic
1Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté)
2Imperial College London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean Perdrix
1Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicolas Senn
1Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté)
3University of Lausanne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Katia Jaton
3University of Lausanne
4Institute of microbiology, University hospital of Lausanne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Opota Onya
3University of Lausanne
4Institute of microbiology, University hospital of Lausanne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alain Maillard
5Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gianni Minghelli
5Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacques Cornuz
1Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté)
3University of Lausanne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gilbert Greub
3University of Lausanne
4Vidy-Med
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Blaise Genton
1Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté)
3University of Lausanne
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Valérie D’Acremont
1Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté)
3University of Lausanne
5Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: valerie.dacremont@unisante.ch
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Nasopharyngeal antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) and saliva RT-PCR have shown variable performance to detect SARS-CoV-2.

Methods In October 2020, we conducted a prospective trial involving patients presenting at testing centers with symptoms of COVID-19. We compared detection rates and performance of RDT, saliva PCR and nasopharyngeal (NP) PCR.

Results Out of 949 patients enrolled, 928 patients had all three tests. 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 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, sensitivities were 96.6% (90.5-99.3%), 97.8% (92.1-99.7%) and 95.3% (89.4-98.5%) respectively. Specificity of RDT was 100% (99.3-100%) compared to any PCR. RDT sensitivity was similar <4 days (87.8%) and ≥4 days (85.7%) after symptoms onset (p=0.6). Sensitivities 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 The high performance of RDTs allows rapid identification of COVID cases with immediate isolation of the vast majority of contagious individuals. RDT could be a game changer in primary care practices, and even more so in resource-constrained settings. PCR on saliva can replace NP PCR.

ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04613310

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Trial

ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04613310

Funding Statement

The RDT and saliva PCR were payed for by the cantonal health authorities of Vaud.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study protocol and related documents were approved by the ethical review committee of Canton Vaud (CER-VD 2020-02269).

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data referred to in the manuscript are available.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 24, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: a prospective comparative clinical trial
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: a prospective comparative clinical trial
Jean Marc Schwob, Alix Miauton, Dusan Petrovic, Jean Perdrix, Nicolas Senn, Katia Jaton, Opota Onya, Alain Maillard, Gianni Minghelli, Jacques Cornuz, Gilbert Greub, Blaise Genton, Valérie D’Acremont
medRxiv 2020.11.23.20237057; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.23.20237057
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: a prospective comparative clinical trial
Jean Marc Schwob, Alix Miauton, Dusan Petrovic, Jean Perdrix, Nicolas Senn, Katia Jaton, Opota Onya, Alain Maillard, Gianni Minghelli, Jacques Cornuz, Gilbert Greub, Blaise Genton, Valérie D’Acremont
medRxiv 2020.11.23.20237057; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.23.20237057

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (70)
  • Allergy and Immunology (168)
  • Anesthesia (50)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (448)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (80)
  • Dermatology (55)
  • Emergency Medicine (157)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (190)
  • Epidemiology (5219)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (195)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (750)
  • Geriatric Medicine (77)
  • Health Economics (212)
  • Health Informatics (694)
  • Health Policy (352)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (223)
  • Hematology (99)
  • HIV/AIDS (162)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5823)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (356)
  • Medical Education (102)
  • Medical Ethics (25)
  • Nephrology (80)
  • Neurology (758)
  • Nursing (43)
  • Nutrition (129)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (141)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (231)
  • Oncology (475)
  • Ophthalmology (149)
  • Orthopedics (38)
  • Otolaryngology (94)
  • Pain Medicine (39)
  • Palliative Medicine (19)
  • Pathology (139)
  • Pediatrics (223)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (136)
  • Primary Care Research (96)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (854)
  • Public and Global Health (1995)
  • Radiology and Imaging (345)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (157)
  • Respiratory Medicine (283)
  • Rheumatology (93)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (72)
  • Sports Medicine (75)
  • Surgery (108)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (39)