Comparison of Rapid Antigen Tests' Performance Between Delta and Omicron Variants of SARS-CoV-2 : A Secondary Analysis From a Serial Home Self-testing Study.

BACKGROUND: It is important to document the performance of rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) in detecting SARS-CoV-2 variants. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Ag-RDTs in detecting the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variants of SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study that enrolled participants between 18 October 2021 and 24 January 2022. Participants did Ag-RDTs and collected samples for reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing every 48 hours for 15 days. SETTING: The parent study enrolled participants throughout the mainland United States through a digital platform. All participants self-collected anterior nasal swabs for rapid antigen testing and RT-PCR testing. All Ag-RDTs were completed at home, whereas nasal swabs for RT-PCR were shipped to a central laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Of 7349 participants enrolled in the parent study, 5779 asymptomatic persons who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 on day 1 of the study were eligible for this substudy. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity of Ag-RDTs on the same day as the first positive (index) RT-PCR result and 48 hours after the first positive RT-PCR result. RESULTS: A total of 207 participants were positive on RT-PCR (58 Delta, 149 Omicron). Differences in sensitivity between variants were not statistically significant (same day: Delta, 15.5% [95% CI, 6.2% to 24.8%] vs. Omicron, 22.1% [CI, 15.5% to 28.8%]; at 48 hours: Delta, 44.8% [CI, 32.0% to 57.6%] vs. Omicron, 49.7% [CI, 41.6% to 57.6%]). Among 109 participants who had RT-PCR-positive results for 48 hours, rapid antigen sensitivity did not differ significantly between Delta- and Omicron-infected participants (48-hour sensitivity: Delta, 81.5% [CI, 66.8% to 96.1%] vs. Omicron, 78.0% [CI, 69.1% to 87.0%]). Only 7.2% of the 69 participants with RT-PCR-positive results for shorter than 48 hours tested positive by Ag-RDT within 1 week; those with Delta infections remained consistently negative on Ag-RDTs. LIMITATION: A testing frequency of 48 hours does not allow a finer temporal resolution of the analysis of test performance, and the results of Ag-RDTs are based on self-report. CONCLUSION: The performance of Ag-RDTs in persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is not inferior to that in persons with Delta infections. Serial testing improved the sensitivity of Ag-RDTs for both variants. The performance of rapid antigen testing varies on the basis of duration of RT-PCR positivity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

The consequences of emotionally evocative patient behaviors on emergency nurses' patient assessments and handoffs: An experimental study using simulated patient cases.

BACKGROUND: Engaging with human emotions is an integral but poorly understood part of the work of emergency healthcare providers. Patient factors (e.g., irritable behavior; mental illness) can evoke strong emotions, and evidence suggests that these emotions can impact care quality and patient safety. Given that nurses play a critical role in providing high quality care, efforts to identify and remedy factors that may compromise care are needed. Yet to date, few experiments have been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of emotionally evocative patient behavior as well as the presence of mental illness on emergency nurses' emotions, patient assessments, testing advocacy, and written handoffs. DESIGN: Experimental vignette research. SETTING: Online experiment distributed via email between October and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 130 emergency nurses from seven hospitals in the Northeastern United States and one hospital in the mid-Atlantic region in the United States. METHODS: Nurses completed four multimedia computer-simulated patient encounters in which patient behavior (irritable vs. calm) and mental illness (present vs. absent) were experimentally varied. Nurses reported their emotions and clinical assessments, recommended diagnostic tests, and provided written handoffs. Tests were coded for whether the test would result in a correct diagnosis, and handoffs were coded for negative and positive patient descriptions and the presence of specific clinical information. RESULTS: Nurses experienced more negative emotions (anger, unease) and reported less engagement when assessing patients exhibiting irritable (vs. calm) behavior. Nurses also judged patients with irritable (vs. calm) behavior as more likely to exaggerate their pain and as poorer historians, and as less likely to cooperate, return to work, and recover. Nurses' handoffs were more likely to communicate negative descriptions of patients with irritable (vs. calm) behavior and omit specific clinical information (e.g., whether tests were ordered, personal information). The presence of mental illness increased unease and sadness and resulted in nurses being less likely to recommend a necessary test for a correct diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency nurses' assessments and handoffs were impacted by patient factors, particularly irritable patient behavior. As nurses are central to the clinical team and experience regular, close contact with patients, the effects of irritable patient behavior on nursing assessments and care practices have important implications. We discuss potential approaches to address these ill effects, including reflexive practice, teamwork, and standardization of handoffs. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Simulated experimental study found that despite having received identical clinical information, emergency nurses believed that patients displaying irritable behaviours were less likely to return to work soon and were less likely to recover than patients who displayed calm behaviour.

Comparison of Rapid Antigen Tests' Performance between Delta (B.1.61.7; AY.X) and Omicron (B.1.1.529; BA1) Variants of SARS-CoV-2: Secondary Analysis from a Serial Home Self-Testing Study.

Background: There is a need to understand the performance of rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDT) for detection of the Delta (B.1.61.7; AY.X) and Omicron (B.1.1.529; BA1) SARS-CoV-2 variants. Methods: Participants without any symptoms were enrolled from October 18, 2021 to January 24, 2022 and performed Ag-RDT and RT-PCR tests every 48 hours for 15 days. This study represents a non-pre-specified analysis in which we sought to determine if sensitivity of Ag-RDT differed in participants with Delta compared to Omicron variant. Participants who were positive on RT-PCR on the first day of the testing period were excluded. Delta and Omicron variants were defined based on sequencing and date of first RT-PCR positive result (RT-PCR+). Comparison of Ag-RDT performance between the variants was based on sensitivity, defined as proportion of participants with Ag-RDT+ results in relation to their first RT-PCR+ result, for different duration of testing with rapid Ag-RDT. Subsample analysis was performed based on the result of participants' second RT-PCR test within 48 hours of the first RT-PCR+ test. Results: From the 7,349 participants enrolled in the parent study, 5,506 met the eligibility criteria for this analysis. A total of 153 participants were RT-PCR+ (61 Delta, 92 Omicron); among this group, 36 (23.5%) tested Ag-RDT+ on the same day, and 84 (54.9%) tested Ag-RDT+ within 48 hours as first RT-PCR+. The differences in sensitivity between variants were not statistically significant (same-day: Delta 16.4% [95% CI: 8.2-28.1] vs Omicron 28.2% [95% CI: 19.4-38.6]; and 48-hours: Delta 45.9% [33.1-59.2] vs. Omicron 60.9% [50.1-70.9]). This trend continued among the 86 participants who had consecutive RT-PCR+ result (48-hour sensitivity: Delta 79.3% [60.3-92.1] vs. Omicron: 89.5% [78.5-96.0]). Conversely, the 38 participants who had an isolated RT-PCR+ remained consistently negative on Ag-RDT, regardless of the variant. Conclusions: The performance of Ag-RDT is not inferior among individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant as compared to the Delta variant. The improvement in sensitivity of Ag-RDT noted with serial testing is consistent between Delta and Omicron variant. Performance of Ag-RDT varies based on duration of RT-PCR+ results and more studies are needed to understand the clinical and public health significance of individuals who are RT-PCR+ for less than 48 hours.

A qualitative investigation of the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on emergency physicians' emotional experiences and coping strategies.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, emergency physicians in the United States have faced unprecedented challenges, risks, and uncertainty while caring for patients in an already vulnerable healthcare system. As such, the pandemic has exacerbated high levels of negative emotions and burnout among emergency physicians, but little systematic qualitative work has documented these phenomena. The purpose of this qualitative investigation was to study emergency physicians' emotional experiences in response to COVID-19 and the coping strategies that they employed to navigate the pandemic. METHODS: From September 2020 to February 2021, we conducted semistructured interviews with 26 emergency physicians recruited from 2 early COVID-19 epicenters: New York City and the Metro Boston region. Interviews, coding, and analyses were conducted using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Emergency physicians reported heightened anxiety, empathy, sadness, frustration, and anger during the pandemic. Physicians frequently attributed feelings of anxiety to medical uncertainty around the COVID-19 virus, personal risk of contracting the virus and transmitting it to family members, the emergency environment, and resource availability. Emergency physicians also discussed the emotional effects of policies prohibiting patients' family members from entering the emergency department (ED), both on themselves and patients. Sources of physician anger and frustration included changing policies and rules, hospital leadership and administration, and pay cuts. Some physicians described an evolving, ongoing coping process in response to the pandemic, and most identified collective discussion and processing within the emergency medicine community as an effective coping strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the need to investigate the effects of physicians' pandemic-related emotional stress and burnout on patient care. Evidence-based interventions to support emergency physicians in coping with pandemic-related trauma are needed.