RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of saliva molecular point of care for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.06.12.21258811
DO 10.1101/2021.06.12.21258811
A1 LeGoff, Jérôme
A1 Kernéis, Solen
A1 Elie, Caroline
A1 Mercier Delarue, Séverine
A1 Gastli, Nabil
A1 Choupeaux, Laure
A1 Fourgeaud, Jacques
A1 Alby, Marie-Laure
A1 Quentin, Pierre
A1 Pavie, Juliette
A1 Brazille, Patricia
A1 Néré, Marie Laure
A1 Minier, Marine
A1 Gabassi, Audrey
A1 Leroy, Chrystel
A1 Parfait, Béatrice
A1 Tréluyer, Jean-Marc
A1 Delaugerre, Constance
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/22/2021.06.12.21258811.abstract
AB Background Rapid identification of SARS-Cov-2 infected individuals is a cornerstone in strategies for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swab. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis.Objectives and methods We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV™) specifically designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR (reference test), to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing.Results Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) were tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% (95%CI: 26-44) and 97% (95%CI: 96-98) respectively. The performance was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p=0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference test, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%.Conclusion In the ambulatory setting, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from crude saliva samples with the RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.Registration number NCT04578509Funding Sources French Ministry of Health and the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris Foundation.Competing Interest StatementOutside the submitted work, Solen Kerneis reports consulting fees, a research grant, honoraria for a lecture and travel expenses from bioMerieux (in 2018-2019); Jerome LeGoff reports consulting fees from bioMerieux and Roche Molecular (in 2018-2019); Constance Delaugerre reports to be member of a scientific board for MSD and Gilead ViiV, and a research grant from Gilead ViiV.Clinical TrialNCT04578509Funding StatementFrench Ministry of Health and the Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris Foundation.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 IRB Ile-de France III approved the study protocol prior to data collection (approval number 3840-NI) and all subsequent amendments.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.YesIndividual data will not be publicly available, because participants did not provide consent for it.