Competing realities, uncertain diagnoses of infectious disease: Mass self-testing for COVID-19 and liminal bio-citizenship.

Diagnoses of infectious diseases are being transformed as mass self-testing using rapid antigen tests (RATs) is increasingly integrated into public health. Widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic, RATs are claimed to have many advantages over 'gold-standard' polymerase chain reaction tests, especially their ease of use and production of quick results. Yet, while laboratory studies indicate the value of RATs in detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus antigen, uncertainty surrounds their deployment and ultimate effectiveness in stemming infections. This article applies the analytic lens of biological citizenship (or bio-citizenship) to explore Australia's experience of implementing a RAT-based mass self-testing strategy to manage COVID-19. Drawing on Annemarie Mol's (1999, The Sociological Review, 47(1), 74-89) concept of ontological politics and analysing government statements, scientific articles and news media reporting published during a critical juncture of the strategy's implementation, we explore the kind of bio-citizenship implied by this strategy. Our analysis suggests the emergence of what we call liminal bio-citizenship, whereby citizens are made responsible for self-managing infection risk without the diagnostic certitude this demands. We discuss how the different realities of mass self-testing interact to reinforce this liminal citizenship and consider the implications for the sociology of diagnosis.

Rapid antigen testing in COVID-19 management for school-aged children: an observational study in Cheshire and Merseyside, UK.

BACKGROUND: Twice weekly lateral flow tests (LFTs) for secondary school children was UK Government policy from 8 March 2021. We evaluate use of LFTs (both supervised at test centres, and home test kits) in school-aged children in Cheshire and Merseyside. METHODS: We report (i) number of LFT positives (ii) proportion of LFT positive with confirmatory reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test within 2 days, and (iii) agreement between LFT-positive and confirmatory PCR, and dependence of (i-iii) on COVID-19 prevalence. FINDINGS: 1 248 468 LFTs were taken by 211 255 12-18 years old, and 163 914 by 52 116 5-11 years old between 6 November 2020 and 31 July 2021. Five thousand three hundred and fourteen (2.5%) 12-18 years old and 1996 (3.8%) 5-11 years old returned LFT positives, with 3829 (72.1%) and 1535 (76.9%) confirmatory PCRs, and 3357 (87.7%) and 1383 (90.1%) confirmatory PCR-positives, respectively.Monthly proportions of LFT positive with PCR negative varied between 4.7% and 35.3% in 12-18 years old (corresponding proportion of all tests positive: 9.7% and 0.3%).Deprivation and non-White ethnicity were associated with reduced uptake of confirmatory PCR. INTERPRETATION: Substantial inequalities in confirmatory testing need more attention to avoid further disadvantage through education loss. When prevalence is low additional measures, including confirmatory testing, are needed. Local Directors of Public Health taking more control over schools testing may be needed. FUNDING: DHSC, MRC, NIHR, EPSRC.

Association of neighborhood-level sociodemographic factors with Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) distribution of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests in 5 US communities.

BACKGROUND: Many interventions for widescale distribution of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 have utilized online, direct-to-consumer (DTC) ordering systems; however, little is known about the sociodemographic characteristics of home-test users. We aimed to characterize the patterns of online orders for rapid antigen tests and determine geospatial and temporal associations with neighborhood characteristics and community incidence of COVID-19, respectively. METHODS: This observational study analyzed online, DTC orders for rapid antigen test kits from beneficiaries of the Say Yes! Covid Test program from March to November 2021 in five communities: Louisville, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fulton County, Georgia; O'ahu, Hawaii; and Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti, Michigan. Using spatial autoregressive models, we assessed the geospatial associations of test kit distribution with Census block-level education, income, age, population density, and racial distribution and Census tract-level Social Vulnerability Index. Lag association analyses were used to measure the association between online rapid antigen kit orders and community-level COVID-19 incidence. RESULTS: In total, 164,402 DTC test kits were ordered during the intervention. Distribution of tests at all sites were significantly geospatially clustered at the block-group level (Moran's I: p < 0.001); however, education, income, age, population density, race, and social vulnerability index were inconsistently associated with test orders across sites. In Michigan, Georgia, and Kentucky, there were strong associations between same-day COVID-19 incidence and test kit orders (Michigan: r = 0.89, Georgia: r = 0.85, Kentucky: r = 0.75). The incidence of COVID-19 during the current day and the previous 6-days increased current DTC orders by 9.0 (95% CI = 1.7, 16.3), 3.0 (95% CI = 1.3, 4.6), and 6.8 (95% CI = 3.4, 10.2) in Michigan, Georgia, and Kentucky, respectively. There was no same-day or 6-day lagged correlation between test kit orders and COVID-19 incidence in Indiana. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that online ordering is not associated with geospatial clustering based on sociodemographic characteristics. Observed temporal preferences for DTC ordering can guide public health messaging around DTC testing programs.

Structural Insights of the SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein: Implications for the Inner-workings of Rapid Antigen Tests.

The nucleocapsid (N) protein is an abundant component of SARS-CoV-2 and a key analyte for lateral-flow rapid antigen tests. Here, we present new structural insights for the SARS-CoV-2 N protein using cryo-electron microscopy (EM) and molecular modeling tools. Epitope mapping based on structural data supported host-immune interactions in the C-terminal portion of the protein, while other regions revealed protein-protein interaction sites. Complementary modeling results suggested that N protein structures from known variants of concern (VOC) are nearly 100% conserved at specific antibody-binding sites. Collectively, these results suggest that rapid tests that target the nucleocapsid C-terminal domain should have similar accuracy across all VOCs. In addition, our combined structural modeling workflow may guide the design of immune therapies to counter viral processes as we plan for future variants and pandemics.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population by three prevailing rapid antigen tests: cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are the most widely used point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Since the accuracy may have altered by changes in SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, indications for testing, sampling and testing procedures, and roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination, we evaluated the performance of three prevailing SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we consecutively enrolled individuals aged >16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three Dutch public health service COVID-19 test sites. In the first phase, participants underwent either BD-Veritor System (Becton Dickinson), PanBio (Abbott), or SD-Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) testing with routine sampling procedures. In a subsequent phase, participants underwent SD-Biosensor testing with a less invasive sampling method (combined oropharyngeal-nasal [OP-N] swab). Diagnostic accuracies were assessed against molecular testing. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred fifty-five of 7005 participants (99%) with results from both an Ag-RDT and a molecular reference test were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and overall sensitivities were 13% (188/1441) and 69% (129/188, 95% CI 62-75) for BD-Veritor, 8% (173/2056) and 69% (119/173, 61-76) for PanBio, and 12% (215/1769) and 74% (160/215, 68-80) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 10% (164/1689) and 75% (123/164, 68-81) for SD-Biosensor with OP-N sampling. In those symptomatic or asymptomatic at sampling, sensitivities were 72-83% and 54-56%, respectively. Above a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities were 86% (125/146, 79-91) for BD-Veritor, 89% (108/121, 82-94) for PanBio, and 88% (160/182, 82-92) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 84% (118/141, 77-89) with OP-N sampling. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. Sixty-one per cent of false-negative Ag-RDT participants returned for testing within 14 days (median: 3 days, interquartile range 3) of whom 90% tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: Overall sensitivities of three SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs were 69-75%, increasing to ≥86% above a viral load cut-off. The decreased sensitivity among asymptomatic participants and high positivity rate during follow-up in false-negative Ag-RDT participants emphasise the need for education of the public about the importance of re-testing after an initial negative Ag-RDT should symptoms develop. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N and deep nasopharyngeal sampling was similar; adopting the more convenient sampling method might reduce the threshold for professional testing.

Analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigenic tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital outbreak situation.

The reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) continues to be the reference diagnostic method for the confirmation of COVID-19 cases; however, rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) have recently been developed. The purpose of the study is to assess the performance of rapid antigen-based COVID-19 testing in the context of hospital outbreaks. This was an observational, cross-sectional study. The study period was from October 2020 to January 2021. The "Panbio COVID-19 AG" RADT (Abbott) was performed and TaqPath COVID-19 test RT-PCR. The samples were obtained from hospitalised patients in suspected outbreak situations at the Ramón y Cajal Hospital. A hospital outbreak was defined as the presence of 3 or more epidemiologically linked cases. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the RADT were calculated using RT-PCR as a reference. A total of 17 hospital outbreaks were detected in 11 hospital units during the study period, in which 34 RT-PCR and RADT screenings were performed. We obtained 541 samples, which were analysed with RT-PCR and a further 541 analysed with RADT. Six RADT tests gave conflicting results with the RT-PCR, 5 of them with a negative RADT and positive RT-PCR and one with positive RADT and a negative RT-PCR. The sensitivity of the RADT was 83.3% (65.3-94.4%) and the specificity was 99.8% (98.9-100%). The PPV was 96.2% (80.4-99.9%) and the NPV was 99% (97.7-99.7%). The RADT shows good diagnostic performance in patients on non-COVID-19 hospital wards, in the context of an outbreak.

Sensitivity and specificity of two WHO approved SARS-CoV2 antigen assays in detecting patients with SARS-CoV2 infection.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen (Ag) detection kits are widely used in addition to quantitative reverse transcription PCR PCR (RT-qPCR), as they are cheaper with a rapid turnaround time. As there are many concerns regarding their sensitivity and specificity, in different settings, we evaluated two WHO approved rapid Ag kits in a large cohort of Sri Lankan individuals. METHODS: Paired nasopharangeal swabs were obtained from 4786 participants for validation of the SD-Biosensor rapid Ag assay and 3325 for the Abbott rapid Ag assay, in comparison to RT-qPCR. A short questionnaire was used to record symptoms at the time of testing, and blood samples were obtained from 2721 of them for detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the SD-Biosensor Ag kit was 36.5% and the Abbott Ag test was 50.76%. The Abbott Ag test showed specificity of 99.4% and the SD-Biosensor Ag test 97.5%. At Ct values < 25, the sensitivity was 71.3% to 76.6% for the SD-Biosensor Ag test and 77.3% to 88.9% for the Abbott Ag test. The Ct values for all genes (RdRP, S, E and N) tested with all RT-qPCR kits were significantly lower for the positive results of the Abbott Ag test compared to the SD-Biosensor test. 209 (48.04%) individuals who had antibodies gave a positive RT-qPCR result, and antibody positivity rates were higher at Ct values > 30 (46.1 to 82.9%). 32.1% of those who gave a positive result with the SD-Biosensor Ag test and 26.3% of those who gave positive results with the Abbott Ag test had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the time of detection. CONCLUSIONS: Both rapid Ag tests appeared to be highly sensitive in detecting individuals at lower Ct values, in a community setting in Sri Lanka, but it will be important to further establish the relationship to infectivity.

Saliva-based COVID-19 detection: A rapid antigen test of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein using an electrical-double-layer gated field-effect transistor-based biosensing system.

Facing the unstopped surges of COVID-19, an insufficient capacity of diagnostic testing jeopardizes the control of disease spread. Due to a centralized setting and a long turnaround, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR), the gold standard of viral detection, has fallen short in timely reflecting the epidemic status quo during an urgent outbreak. As such, a rapid screening tool is necessitated to help contain the spread of COVID-19 amid the countries where the vaccine implementations have not been widely deployed. In this work, we propose a saliva-based COVID-19 antigen test using the electrical double layer (EDL)-gated field-effect transistor-based biosensor (BioFET). The detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein is validated with limits of detection (LoDs) of 0.34 ng/mL (7.44 pM) and 0.14 ng/mL (2.96 pM) in 1× PBS and artificial saliva, respectively. The specificity is inspected with types of antigens, exhibiting low cross-reactivity among MERS-CoV, Influenza A virus, and Influenza B virus. This portable system is embedded with Bluetooth communication and user-friendly interfaces that are fully compatible with digital health, feasibly leading to an on-site turnaround, an effective management, and a proactive response taken by medical providers and frontline health workers.

Evaluation of a rapid-antigen test for COVID-19 in an asymptomatic collective : A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Over the past year, there has been a significant increase in rapid antigen test (RAT) detection of SARS-CoV­2 COVID-19. Antigen detection is usually inferior to real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The aim of this study was to evaluate a RAT for specificity and sensitivity in an asymptomatic collective. METHODS: The study was carried out in January 2021 at a hospital located in a district with a 7-day index and an average of more than 100 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. COVID-19 patients are treated at this hospital. All employees with symptoms typical of COVID-19 were not allowed to go to work. We used RAT by Roche® (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, D-68305 Mannheim) and RT-PCR on our employees. The testing was done voluntarily. We performed RT-PCR and RAT using two swab tubes at the same time. RESULTS: We could correlate 919 RAT to 919 RT-PCR tests. 12 people tested positive in RAT. All 12 tests were validated by RT-PCR. There was not one incorrect positive result in RAT. In one person COVID-19 was not detected by RAT, but then positively identified with a RT-PCR. In the group of positive RAT, the mean cycle threshold (CT) value was 19.95. Our results showed a sensitivity of 92.3%, CI (confidence interval) [0.78; 1.00] and a specificity of 100.00% CI [1.0; 1.0]. CONCLUSION: RAT can be an important tool for screening for SARS-CoV­2 COVID-19 at the point of care. With low cost and resource needs, high specificity, and high specificity, RAT are performed best during the early stages of SARS-CoV­2 COVID-19, when the viral loads are high.

A Real-World Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing versus PCR Testing in Florida.

The reported sensitivity of rapid, antigen-based diagnostics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection varies. Few studies have evaluated rapid antigen tests in real-world settings or among large populations. Beginning October 2020, Florida offered individuals presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing PCR testing if they tested positive by the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 antigen (Ag) card, were symptomatic, or required or requested PCR testing. We compared results among individuals who received both types of tests at four publicly accessible testing sites across Florida. We calculated the positive percent agreement (PPA) between the two test types by symptom status. Subsequently, we evaluated the PPA among individuals regardless of symptoms with lower cycle threshold values (<30). Overall, 18,457 individuals were tested via both methods, of which 3,153 (17.1%) were positive by PCR. The PPA for the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag card using the PCR comparator was 49.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.4% to 50.9%). Among symptomatic individuals the PPA was 51.9% (95% CI, 49.7% to 54.0%). When restricted to positive PCR tests with a cycle threshold value of <30, regardless of symptom status, the PPA was 75.3% (95% CI, 72.8% to 77.6%). The PPA of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag card compared with PCR was lower than that previously reported. Our findings may reflect the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test in real-world settings.

Performance Characteristics of BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Card for Screening Asymptomatic Individuals in a University Setting.

We compared the performance of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 antigen card to that of a standard reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assay (Thermo Fisher TaqPath COVID-19 Combo kit) for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2,645 asymptomatic students presenting for screening at the University of Utah. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 1.7% of the study participants by RT-PCR. BinaxNOW identified 24 infections but missed 21 infections that were detected by RT-PCR. The analytical sensitivity (positive agreement) and analytical specificity (negative agreement) for the BinaxNOW were 53.3% and 100%, respectively, compared to the RT-PCR assay. The median cycle threshold (CT ) value in the specimens that had concordant positive BinaxNOW antigen results was significantly lower than that of specimens that were discordant (CT of 17.6 versus 29.6; P < 0.001). In individuals with presumably high viral loads (CT of <23.0), a 95.8% positive agreement was observed between the RT-PCR assay and BinaxNOW. Due to the possibility of false-negative results, caution must be taken when utilizing rapid antigen testing for screening asymptomatic individuals.

Time scale performance of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2: Evaluation of 10 rapid antigen assays.

There is a great demand for more rapid tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection to reduce waiting time, boost public health strategies for combating disease, decrease costs, and prevent overwhelming laboratory capacities. This study was conducted to assess the performance of 10 lateral flow device viral antigen immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab specimens. We analyzed 231 nasopharyngeal samples collected from October 2020 to December 2020, from suspected COVID-19 cases and contacts of positive cases at Biotechnology Research Center laboratories, Tripoli, Libya. The performance of 10 COVID-19 Antigen (Ag) rapid test devices for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen was compared to a quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). In this study, 161 cases had symptoms consistent with COVID-19. The mean duration from symptom onset was 6.6 ± 4.3 days. The median cycle threshold (Ct ) of positive samples was 25. Among the 108 positive samples detected by RT-qPCR, the COVID-19 antigen (Ag) tests detected 83 cases correctly. All rapid Ag test devices used in this study showed 100% specificity. While tests from six manufacturers had an overall sensitivity range from 75% to 100%, the remaining four tests had a sensitivity of 50%-71.43%. Sensitivity during the first 6 days of symptoms and in samples with high viral loads (Ct < 25), was 100% in all but two of the test platforms. False-negative samples had a median Ct of 34 and an average duration of onset of symptoms of 11.3 days (range = 5-20 days). Antigen test diagnosis has high sensitivity and specificity in early disease when patients present less than 7 days of symptom onset. Patients are encouraged to test as soon as they get COVID-19-related symptoms within 1 week and to seek medical advice within 24 h if they develop disturbed smell/taste. The use of rapid antigen tests is important for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic and reducing the burden on molecular diagnostic laboratories.

Detection of the new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 in five SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs), Germany, March 2021.

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) should not escape molecular surveillance. We investigated if SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) could detect B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 VOCs in certain laboratory conditions. Infectious cell culture supernatants containing B.1.1.7, B.1.351 or non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 were respectively diluted both in DMEM and saliva. Dilutions were analysed with Roche, Siemens, Abbott, nal von minden and RapiGEN RATs. While further studies with appropriate real-life clinical samples are warranted, all RATs detected B.1.1.7 and B.1.351, generally comparable to non-VOC strain.

Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential impacts of optimizing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rapid antigen test (RAT) self-testing diagnostic accuracy information. DESIGN: Online randomized experiment using hypothetical scenarios: in scenarios 1 to 3 (RAT result positive), the posttest probability was considered to be very high (likely true positives), and in scenarios 4 and 5 (RAT result negative), the posttest probability was considered to be moderately high (likely false negatives). SETTING: December 12 to 22, 2022, during the mixed-variant Omicron wave in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Australian adults. Intervention: diagnostic accuracy of a COVID-19 self-RAT presented in a health literacy-sensitive way; usual care: diagnostic accuracy information provided by the manufacturer; control: no diagnostic accuracy information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Intention to self-isolate. RESULTS: A total of 226 participants were randomized (control n = 75, usual care n = 76, intervention n = 75). More participants in the intervention group correctly interpreted the meaning of the diagnostic accuracy information (P = 0.08 for understanding sensitivity, P < 0.001 for understanding specificity). The proportion who would self-isolate was similar across scenarios 1 to 3 (likely true positives). The proportion was higher in the intervention group than in the control for scenarios 4 and 5 (likely false negatives). These differences were not statistically significant. The largest potential effect was seen in scenario 5 (dinner party with confirmed cases, the person has symptoms, negative self-RAT result), with 63% of the intervention group and 49% of the control group indicating they would self-isolate (absolute difference 13.3%, 95% confidence interval: -2% to 30%, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Health literacy sensitive formatting supported participant understanding and recall of diagnostic accuracy information. This may increase community intentions to self-isolate when there is a likely false-negative self-RAT result. Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12622001517763). HIGHLIGHTS: Community-based diagnostic accuracy studies of COVID-19 self-RATs indicate substantially lower sensitivity (and higher risk of false-negative results) than the manufacturer-supplied information on most government public Web sites.This online randomized study found that a health literacy-sensitive presentation of the imperfect diagnostic accuracy COVID-19 self-RATs supported participant understanding and recall of diagnostic accuracy information.Health literacy-sensitive presentation may increase community intentions to self-isolate after a negative test result where the posttest probability is still moderately high (i.e., likely false-negative result).To prevent the onward spread of infection, efforts to improve communication about the high risk of false-negative results from COVID-19 self-RATs are urgently needed.

Upcycling of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test Cassettes into Flame Retardant Plastics.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the generation of large quantities of medical waste and highlighted the importance of efficient waste management systems. One good example of this is rapid antigen tests, which contain valuable resources, and which are usually incinerated after their use. The present study aimed to evaluate the potential of waste rapid antigen test cassettes (RATCs) as a resource for the preparation of sustainable flame-retardant plastics. Milled RATCs were compounded with different concentrations (10-30 wt.%) of aluminium diethylphosphinate (ADP) and injection moulded into test specimens. Prepared samples were exposed to ultraviolet (UV) ageing for varying durations and characterised by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), tensile tests, Charpy impact tests, and vertical burning tests. FT-IR analysis revealed that RATCs are composed mainly of high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), which was further confirmed by suitable glass transition temperatures (Tg) determined by DSC and DMA. The addition of ADP resulted in progressive embrittlement of HIPS with increasing concentration, while flammability decreased significantly and reached V-1 classification at loading of 30 wt.%. UV ageing caused photo-oxidative degradation of HIPS, which resulted in decreased strain-at-break, while flammability was not affected.

Optimising nucleic acid recovery from rapid antigen tests for whole genome sequencing of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of respiratory viruses from rapid antigen tests (RAT-WGS) is a novel approach to expanding genomic surveillance of respiratory infections. To date however, there are limited data on the genomic stability of these viruses on RATs. In this study, we investigated the effect of storage conditions and nucleic acid preservatives on the ability to enhance stability and improve recovery of respiratory virus genomes from RATs. METHODS: A mixture of common respiratory viruses was used to inoculate RATs at different environmental temperatures (4°C, 20°C and 36°C), with two preservative reagents (RNALater and DNA/RNA shield) Nucleic acid was extracted from RATs at two different timepoints (72 h and seven days) and subject to real-time multiplex respiratory PCR to detect a range of respiratory viruses. WGS was performed using target-enrichment with the TWIST Comprehensive Viral Research Panel. Defined metrics from an automated in-house bioinformatic pipeline were used to assess and compare viral genome recovery under different conditions. RESULTS: Nucleic acid degradation (indicated by relative change in PCR cycle threshold and WGS-based metrics) was most notable at 20 °C and 36 °C. Storage in either RNALater or DNA / RNA shield improved genome recovery for respiratory viruses across all temperature conditions, although this was most pronounced for RNALater. Subtyping of Influenza viruses demonstrated the applicability of RAT-WGS in downstream genomic epidemiological surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Under simulated conditions, RAT-WGS demonstrated that (i) viral genomes were generally stable at 4°C at 72 h and 1 week, (ii) RNALater has a more significant preservation of nucleic acids compared to DNA/RNA Shield and (iii) genome recovery can be achieved using a sequencing depth of 500,000 reads per sample in RNALater, across all respiratory viruses and conditions.

Self-administered versus clinician-performed BinaxNOW COVID rapid test: a comparison of accuracy.

We conducted a single-center study at a free community testing site in Baltimore City to assess the accuracy of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. Self-administered BinaxNOW RATs were compared with clinician-performed RATs and against a reference lab molecular testing as the gold standard. Of the 953 participants, 14.9% were positive for SARS- CoV-2 as determined by RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity were similar for both self- and clinician-performed RATs (sensitivity: 83.9% vs 88.2%, P = 0.40; specificity: 99.8% vs 99.6%, P = 0.6). Subgroup comparisons based on age and race yielded similar results. Notably, 5.2% (95% CI: 1.5% to 9.5%) of positive results were potentially missed due to participant misinterpretation of the self-test card. However, the false-positive rate for RATs was reassuringly comparable in accuracy to clinician-administered tests. These findings hold significant implications for physicians prescribing treatment based on patient-reported, self-administered positive test results. Our study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, underscoring their comparable accuracy to clinician-performed RATs, and endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Further studies using other rapid antigen test brands are warranted.IMPORTANCEAccurate and accessible COVID-19 testing is crucial for effective disease control and management. A recent single-center study conducted in Baltimore City examined the reliability of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. The study found that self-administered RATs yielded similar sensitivity and specificity to clinician-performed tests, demonstrating their comparable accuracy. These findings hold significant implications for physicians relying on patient-reported positive test results for treatment decisions. The study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Furthermore, the study highlights the need for further research using different rapid antigen test brands to enhance generalizability. Ensuring affordable and widespread access to self-tests is crucial, particularly in preparation for future respiratory virus seasons and potential waves of reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 variants such as the Omicron variant.

Evaluation of a COVID-19 rapid antigen testing program among student athletes in a public high school district.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate a COVID-19 rapid antigen testing program among high school athletes through testing data and qualitative analysis from key stakeholders. METHODS: Testing data was obtained by the partnering school district. Testing staff, coaches, and parents participated in a focus group using a semi-structured focus group guide. Transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach to produce the themes of the study. RESULTS: Rapid antigen tests quickly identified a COVID-19-positive student athlete, which allowed for quick isolation and zero transmission to teammates. Focus groups with parents, testing staff, and coaches indicated the testing program improved perceived safety and demonstrated the ability for school staff to implement a widespread COVID-19 screening program with minimal training. CONCLUSIONS: As schools continue to respond to various waves of COVID-19 infections, targeted testing for high-risk activities in school settings such as sports programs may help prevent school outbreaks during times of high community transmission rates. This evaluation adds to a body of literature that will aid schools and policy makers in their decision on how to best keep student athletes and school communities safe for future waves of COVID-19 infection and other pandemics.

Performance of two SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests in resource limited settings, the case of Mali.

Introduction: While real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) is the recommended laboratory method to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, its use in resource limited settings can be difficult to maintain due to high testing demand and shortage of reagents. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of Realy Tech™ and Standard Q™ in comparison to RT-PCR in a relatively low COVID-19 prevalence setting, Mali. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study between January and April 2021 in Bamako and Kati regions to evaluate both rapid tests during a large SARS-CoV-2 prevalence study in Mali. Results: Of the 390 samples tested, the sensitivity and specificity of Realy Tech™ and Standard Q™ were 57.1% (95%CI: 44.1-69.2), 95.8% (95%CI: 93.1-97.5); 61.9% (95%CI: 46.8-75.0), and 94.1% (95%CI: 89.5-96.8) respectively. Using RT-PCR, the global prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 14.4% (56/390). In both rapid antigen tests, the performance was better when used in suspected patients compared to positive patients under treatment. Moreover, higher viral loads equivalent to Ct < 25 were associated with better detection rates. Conclusion: While waiting for more complete data, these preliminary studies suggest that Realy Tech™ and Standard Q™ should not be used alone for COVID-19 diagnosis in Mali.

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the omicron period: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the performances of three commonly used antigen rapid diagnostic tests used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy study in the Omicron period in three public health service COVID-19 test sites in the Netherlands, including 3600 asymptomatic individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing for any reason except confirmatory testing after a positive self-test. Participants were sampled for RT-PCR (reference test) and received one self-test (either Acon Flowflex [Flowflex], MP Biomedicals (MPBio), or Siemens-Healthineers CLINITEST [CLINITEST]) to perform unsupervised at home. Diagnostic accuracies of each self-test were calculated. RESULTS: Overall sensitivities were 27.5% (95% CI, 21.3-34.3%) for Flowflex, 20.9% (13.9-29.4%) for MPBio, and 25.6% (19.1-33.1%) for CLINITEST. After applying a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities increased to 48.3% (37.6-59.2%), 37.8% (22.5-55.2%), and 40.0% (29.5-51.2%), respectively. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. DISCUSSION: The sensitivities of three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests when used as self-tests in asymptomatic individuals in the Omicron period were very low. Antigen rapid diagnostic test self-testing in asymptomatic individuals may only detect a minority of infections at that point in time. Repeated self-testing in case of a negative self-test is advocated to improve the diagnostic yield, and individuals should be advised to re-test when symptoms develop.