PCR and Rapid Diagnostic Test on Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: a Comparative Clinical Trial
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 发起方
- 入组人数
- 949
- 试验地点
- 2
- 主要终点
- Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients for the two different sampling types (saliva vs nasopharyngeal) and two methods (RDT vs PCR) .
研究概览
简要总结
Recent literature shows that the sensitivity of the PCR tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using saliva samples is close to that using nasopharyngeal swabs. This type of sampling represents a practical advantage since it can be performed by the patient herself/himself and would thus allow to speed up the collection process. It is also less painful and could prevent the rare lesions to the nasal mucosa that can occur when using nasopharyngeal swabs.
Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed using nasophayngeal swabs and have shown very high sensitivity against PCR, ranging from 93% to 98% when based on laboratory validation, 80% when based on clinical validation.This method offers the considerable advantage to inform the patient of the test result on site, and allow the provision of appropriate recommendations on the spot of testing. The studies performed so far have been conducted using nasopharyngeal samples only. There are no data with saliva yet. It is expected that the RDT would also work on the saliva. Even if slightly less sensitive due to the fact that it detects antigens and not multiplied RNA as PCR does, RDT on saliva could better serve the public health goal to test widely and quickly and have ultimately more COVID cases detected and isolated, and hence reduced transmission.
To investigate the case detection rates of both PCR on saliva and nasopharynx and RDT on nasopharynx and saliva, the patient will be taken four samples, two swabs on saliva, one for RDT and one for PCR, and two swabs on nasopharynx, one for RDT and one for PCR. Patients who have at least one of the common symptoms and who consent to such a procedure will be recruited to compare the four results. The primary objective is to compare the case detection rates for SARS-CoV-2 of the four testing methods (two sampling types and two test types).
详细描述
Background:
Recent literature shows that the sensitivity of the PCR tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using saliva samples is close to that using nasopharyngeal swabs. This type of sampling represents a practical advantage since it can be performed by the patient herself/himself and would thus allow to speed up the collection process. It is also less painful and could prevent the rare lesions to the nasal mucosa that can occur when using nasopharyngeal swabs.
Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed using nasophayngeal swabs and have shown very high sensitivity against PCR, ranging from 93% to 98% when based on laboratory validation, 80% when based on clinical validation.This method offers the considerable advantage to inform the patient of the test result on site, and allow the provision of appropriate recommendations on the spot of testing. The studies performed so far have been conducted using nasopharyngeal samples only. There are no data with saliva yet. It is expected that the RDT would also work on the saliva. Even if slightly less sensitive due to the fact that it detects antigens and not multiplied RNA as PCR does, RDT on saliva could better serve the public health goal to test widely and quickly and have ultimately more COVID cases detected and isolated, and hence reduced transmission.
To investigate the case detection rates of both PCR on saliva and nasopharynx and RDT on nasopharynx and saliva, patients will be taken four samples, two swabs on saliva, one for RDT and one for PCR, and two swabs on nasopharynx, one for RDT and one for PCR. Patients who have at least one of the common symptoms and who consent to such a procedure will be recruited to compare the four results. The primary objective is to compare the case detection rates for SARS-CoV-2 of the four testing methods (two sampling types and two test types).
Methods:
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Na
- 干预模型
- Single Group
- 主要目的
- Diagnostic
- 盲法
- None
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 18 Years 至 —（Adult, Older Adult）
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 否
入选标准
- •- Outpatient aged above 18 years who reports having at least one of the following symptoms: reported cough, reported fever, reported anosmia, or reported ageusia
排除标准
- •Unwilling or incapable of informed consent
- •Hospitalized patients
- •Anticoagulation
结局指标
主要结局
Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients for the two different sampling types (saliva vs nasopharyngeal) and two methods (RDT vs PCR) .
时间窗: 48 hours
Number of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients by sampling type (saliva and nasopharyngeal swab) and analytical method (RDT and PCR)
次要结局
- Viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 by PCR on saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs(48 hours)