ABSTRACT
BackgroundNasopharyngeal antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) and saliva RT-PCR have shown variable performance to detect SARS-CoV-2. MethodsIn 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. ResultsOut 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(R), Panbio and COVID-VIRO(R) 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. ConclusionsThe 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: NCT04613310
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe general practitioners (GPs)' opinions and practices of preventive care and patients' opinions, attitudes, and behaviors towards prevention. METHODS: The data stemmed from a cross-sectional national survey on prevention conducted in Switzerland from 2015 to 2016. In total, 170 randomly drawn GPs and 1154 of their patients participated. The GPs answered an online questionnaire and the patients answered a questionnaire administrated by fieldworkers present at their practices. RESULTS: Both patients and GPs agreed that delivering preventive care is the dedicated role of a GP. It appeared that beyond classical topics of prevention such as cardiovascular risk factors, other prevention areas (e.g., cannabis consumption, immunization, occupational risks) were scarcely covered by GPs and reported as little-known by patients. In addition, GPs seemed to use a selective approach to prevention, responding to the clinical context, rather than a systematic approach to health promotion. The results also highlight possibilities to improve prevention in family medicine through options such as more supportive tools and public advertising, more time and more delegated tasks and, finally, a more recognized role. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an unfavorable context of prevention within the healthcare system, preventive care in family medicine is reasonably good in Switzerland. However, some limitations appear regarding the topics and the circumstances of preventive care delivery. A global effort is needed to implement necessary changes, and the responsibility should be broadened to other stakeholders.
Subject(s)
Humans , Cannabis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Delivery of Health Care , General Practitioners , Health Personnel , Health Promotion , Immunization , Risk Factors , SwitzerlandABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES@#The aim of this study was to describe general practitioners (GPs)' opinions and practices of preventive care and patients' opinions, attitudes, and behaviors towards prevention.@*METHODS@#The data stemmed from a cross-sectional national survey on prevention conducted in Switzerland from 2015 to 2016. In total, 170 randomly drawn GPs and 1154 of their patients participated. The GPs answered an online questionnaire and the patients answered a questionnaire administrated by fieldworkers present at their practices.@*RESULTS@#Both patients and GPs agreed that delivering preventive care is the dedicated role of a GP. It appeared that beyond classical topics of prevention such as cardiovascular risk factors, other prevention areas (e.g., cannabis consumption, immunization, occupational risks) were scarcely covered by GPs and reported as little-known by patients. In addition, GPs seemed to use a selective approach to prevention, responding to the clinical context, rather than a systematic approach to health promotion. The results also highlight possibilities to improve prevention in family medicine through options such as more supportive tools and public advertising, more time and more delegated tasks and, finally, a more recognized role.@*CONCLUSIONS@#Despite an unfavorable context of prevention within the healthcare system, preventive care in family medicine is reasonably good in Switzerland. However, some limitations appear regarding the topics and the circumstances of preventive care delivery. A global effort is needed to implement necessary changes, and the responsibility should be broadened to other stakeholders.
