Skip to content

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Buccal Screening Evaluation Using an RT-PCR Assay and a Rapid ELISA Test Among Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Buccal Screening Evaluation Using an RT-PCR Assay and a Rapid ELISA Test Among Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients: the CORDAGES Study

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05074745
Acronym
CORDAGES
Enrollment
1500
Registered
2021-10-12
Start date
2021-02-18
Completion date
2021-12-30
Last updated
2021-10-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2, POCT, RT-PCR, Contact case, ELISA, Buccal

Brief summary

The main objective is to expand screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the RT-PCR test (Cobas® Roche, Switzerland) and the ELISA Point of Contact Testing (PORTABLE COVID-19 ANTIGEN LAB® Stark, Italy) on buccal swab compared to the reference test, the RT-PCR test (Cobas® Roche, Switzerland) on nasopharyngeal swab. Secondary objectives * To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of oral swab RT-PCR and POCT relative to the quantitative amplification (Ct) values of the NP Swab RT-PCR assay. * Analyze RT-PCR amplification cycle thresholds (Ct) and POCT diagnostic accuracy as a function of the presence and timing of symptoms. * Among symptomatic participants, compare clinical presentations between positive and negative participants on the NP swab RT-PCR test. * The RT-PCR test may be imperfectly sensitive, ranging from 71 to 98%3. Using a Bayesian latent class model, the investigators will assess the true accuracy of POCT as it does not require the assumption that any one test or combination of tests is perfect14,15.

Interventions

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTELISA POCT vs RT-PCR

3 swabs taken, buccal for RT-PCR and ELISA POCT, nasopharyngeal for RT-PCR

Sponsors

Department of Health Affairs, Monaco
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
Centre Scientifique de Monaco
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Monocentric, Prospective, 3 components Nasopharyngeal swab by PCR Buccal swab by PCR Buccal by ELISA POCT

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* 18+ patient eligible for COVID-19 testing in Monaco * symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 * contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19

Exclusion criteria

* refusal to participate in the study * preventive screening of professional groups * inability to return to the screening center within 48-72 hours of the first visit.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Proportion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients for the two different sampling types (buccal vs nasopharyngeal) and two methods (ELISA POCT vs RT-PCR)48 HoursNumber of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients by sampling type (buccal and nasopharyngeal swab) and analytical method (ELISA POCT vs RT-PC)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Comparison of Ct values in buccal and nasopharyngeal swabs48 HoursCt values by PCR in buccal and nasopharyngeal swabs

Countries

Monaco

Contacts

Primary ContactEric VOIGLIO, MD, PhD
evoiglio@gouv.mc+37798984850

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026