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

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 24;18(2):e0282150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282150. eCollection 2023.

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®, 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).

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Antigens, Viral
  • COVID-19 Testing
  • COVID-19*
  • Humans
  • Polymerase Chain Reaction
  • Prospective Studies
  • SARS-CoV-2*
  • Saliva
  • Sensitivity and Specificity

Substances

  • Antigens, Viral

Associated data

  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT04613310

Grants and funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work. This work was supported by the “Office du Médecin cantonal” of the Health authorities of canton de Vaud (a State of the Swiss Confederation), Switzerland, who paid for the RDT and saliva PCR. https://www.vd.ch/toutes-les-autorites/departements/departement-de-la-sante-et-de-laction-sociale-dsas/direction-generale-de-la-sante-dgs/office-du-medecin-cantonal/ The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional internal or external funding received for this study.