Abstract
Background Nasopharyngeal sampling for nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the current standard diagnostic test for of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the NAAT technique is lengthy and nasopharyngeal sampling requires trained personnel. Saliva NAAT represents an interesting alternative but diagnostic performances vary widely between studies.
Objective To assess the diagnostic accuracy of a nasopharyngeal point-of-care antigen (Ag) test and of saliva NAAT for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), as compared to nasopharyngeal NAAT.
Design Prospective participant enrollment from 19 October through 18 December 2020.
Setting Two community COVID-19 screening centers in Paris, France.
Participants 1452 ambulatory children and adults referred for SARS-CoV-2 testing.
Interventions NAAT on a saliva sample (performed with three different protocols for pre-processing, amplification and detection of SARS-CoV-2) and Ag testing on a nasopharyngeal sample.
Measurements Performance of saliva NAAT and nasopharyngeal Ag testing.
Results Overall, 129/1443 (9%) participants tested positive on nasopharyngeal NAAT (102/564 [18%] in symptomatic and 27/879 [3%] in asymptomatic participants). Sensitivity was of 94% (95% CI, 86% to 98%), 23% (CI, 14% to 35%), 94% (CI, 88% to 97%) and 96% (CI, 91% to 99%) for the nasopharyngeal Ag test and the three different protocols of saliva NAAT, respectively. Estimates of specificity were above 95% for all methods. Diagnostic accuracy was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.
Limitations Few children (n=122, 8%) were included.
Conclusion In the ambulatory setting, diagnostic accuracy of nasopharyngeal Ag testing and of saliva NAAT seems similar to that of nasopharyngeal NAAT, subject to strict compliance with specific pre-processing and amplification protocols.
Registration number NCT04578509
Funding Sources French Ministry of Health and the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris Foundation.
Competing Interest Statement
Outside the submitted work, Solen Kerneis reports consulting fees, a research grant, honoraria for a lecture and travel expenses from bioMerieux (in 2018-2019); Jerome Le Goff 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 Trial
NCT04578509
Funding Statement
The funding sources had no role in the study design, conduct and reporting.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The 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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
Individual data will not be publicly available, because participants did not provide consent for it.
