RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Sensitivity of rapid antigen testing and RT-PCR performed on nasopharyngeal swabs versus saliva samples in COVID-19 hospitalized patients: results of a prospective comparative trial (RESTART)
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.04.09.21255105
DO 10.1101/2021.04.09.21255105
A1 Kritikos, Antonios
A1 Caruana, Giorgia
A1 Brouillet, René
A1 Miroz, John-Paul
A1 Samia, Abed-Maillard
A1 Geraldine, Stieger
A1 Opota, Onya
A1 Croxatto, Antony
A1 Vollenweider, Peter
A1 Bart, Pierre-Alexandre
A1 Chiche, Jean-Daniel
A1 Greub, Gilbert
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/15/2021.04.09.21255105.abstract
AB Objectives Saliva sampling could serve as an alternative non-invasive sample for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis while rapid antigen testing (RAT) might help to mitigate the shortage of reagents sporadically encountered with RT-PCR. Thus, in the RESTART study we compared antigen and RT-PCR testing methods on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and salivary samples.Methods We conducted a prospective observational study among COVID-19 hospitalized patients between 10th December 2020 and 1st February 2021. Paired saliva and NP samples were investigated by RT-PCR (Cobas 6800, Roche-Switzerland) and by two rapid antigen tests: One Step Immunoassay Exdia® COVID-19 Ag (Precision Biosensor, Korea) and Standard Q® COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche-Switzerland).Results A total of 58 paired NP-saliva specimens were collected. Thirty-two of 58 (55%) patients were hospitalized in the intensive care unit and the median duration of symptoms was 11 days (IQR 5-19). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivity of 98% and 69% respectively whereas the specificity of these RT-PCRs assays were of 100%. NP RAT exhibited much lower diagnostic performances with sensitivities of 35% and 41% for the Standard Q® and Exdia® assays respectively, when a wet-swab approach was used (i.e. when the swab was diluted in the viral transport medium (VTM) before testing). The sensitivity of the dry-swab approach was slightly better (47%). These antigen tests exhibited very low sensitivity (4 and 8%) when applied to salivary swabs.Conclusions Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR is the most accurate test for COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitalized patients. RT-PCR on salivary samples may be used when nasopharyngeal swabs are contraindicated. RAT are not appropriate for hospitalized patients.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT04839094Funding StatementThis study was funded by the funds of the Microbiology Institute of Lausanne University Hospital.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics Committee of the Canton de Vaud (CER-VD).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData will be available upon reasonable request to the authors.NPNasopharyngealRT-PCRReal time polymerase chain reactionPOCTRapid Point-of-Care TestRATRapid Antigen TestVTMViral Transport MediumICUIntensive Care UnitFOPHFederal Office of Public HealthVLViral LoadCtCycle thresholdIQRInterquartile range