PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Schwob, Jean Marc AU - Miauton, Alix AU - Petrovic, Dusan AU - Perdrix, Jean AU - Senn, Nicolas AU - Jaton, Katia AU - Onya, Opota AU - Maillard, Alain AU - Minghelli, Gianni AU - Cornuz, Jacques AU - Greub, Gilbert AU - Genton, Blaise AU - D’Acremont, Valérie TI - Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: a prospective comparative clinical trial AID - 10.1101/2020.11.23.20237057 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.11.23.20237057 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/24/2020.11.23.20237057.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/24/2020.11.23.20237057.full AB - 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: NCT04613310Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04613310Funding StatementThe RDT and saliva PCR were payed for by the cantonal health authorities of Vaud.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: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.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.YesAll data referred to in the manuscript are available.