PCR and Rapid Diagnostic Test on Saliva and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

NCT ID: NCT04613310

Last Updated: 2025-10-06

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

949 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2020-09-25

Study Completion Date

2020-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

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).

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

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:

Procedures:

Patients fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria will be recruited consecutively. After confirmation of inclusion and exclusion criteria, patients will be asked whether they would be willing to provide two saliva samples and one nasopharyngeal swab in addition to that provided for routine testing. After written informed consent, patients will be asked to perform swabbing of the gingiva-buccal fold two times and a saliva sample under professional supervision, once for sending to the laboratory to perform PCR, and once for performing the RDT onsite according to manufacturer's information. They will also be taken two nasopharyngeal swabs, one for RDT and one for PCR. No coughing or sniffing prior to sample collection is required. Ideally, water should be avoided 10 minutes prior to collection. Other drinks, food, and nasal sprays should be avoided 20 minutes before sample collection.

The saliva and nasopharyngeal samples will be analysed by PCR according to the standard procedure.

The RDTs will be performed and results read according to the manufacturer information (see below). Alternatively one of the three following tests will be tested: RDT from Roche (Standard Q COVID-19, the RDT from Abbott (Panbio COVID-19 Ag) and the RDT from AAZ-LMB (COVID-VIRO).

The patient will be considered as positive for SARS-CoV-2 if any of the test results (by RDT, or PCR on saliva or nasopharynx) is positive.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

NA

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

4 components Nasopharyngeal swab by PCR Nasopharyngeal swab by RDT Saliva by PCR Saliva by RDT
Primary Study Purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs

One patient will have 4 swabs taken, 2 saliva for PCR and RDT, 2 nasopharyngeal for PCR and RDT

Group Type OTHER

Rapid Diagnostic Test vs PCR

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

4 swabs taken, saliva for PCR and RDT, nasopharyngeal for PCR and RDT

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Rapid Diagnostic Test vs PCR

4 swabs taken, saliva for PCR and RDT, nasopharyngeal for PCR and RDT

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Saliva versus nasopharyngeal swab

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

\- Outpatient aged above 18 years who reports having at least one of the following symptoms: reported cough, reported fever, reported anosmia, or reported ageusia

Exclusion Criteria

* Unwilling or incapable of informed consent
* Hospitalized patients
* Anticoagulation
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisante), University of Lausanne, Switzerland

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Valérie D'Acremont, MD PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Unisanté

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Unisanté

Lausanne, Canton of Vaud, Switzerland

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Switzerland

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Schwob JM, Miauton A, Petrovic D, Perdrix J, Senn N, Gouveia A, Jaton K, Opota O, Maillard A, Minghelli G, Cornuz J, Greub G, Genton B, D'Acremont V. Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial. PLoS One. 2023 Feb 24;18(2):e0282150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282150. eCollection 2023.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 36827328 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

2020-02269

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.