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.

Accuracy of Expired BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Tests.

The widespread existence of expired antigen testing kits in households and potential coronavirus outbreaks necessitates evaluating the reliability of these expired kits. Our study examined BinaxNOW COVID-19 rapid antigen tests 27 months postmanufacture and 5 months past their FDA extended expiration dates, using SARS-CoV-2 variant XBB.1.5 viral stock. We conducted testing at two concentrations, the limit of detection (LOD) and 10 times the LOD. One hundred expired and unexpired kits were tested at each concentration for a total of 400 antigen tests. At the LOD (2.32 × 102 50% tissue culture infective dose/mL [TCID50/mL]), both expired and unexpired tests displayed 100% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.38% to 100%), with no statistical difference (95% CI, -3.92% to 3.92%). Similarly, at 10 times the LOD, unexpired tests retained 100% sensitivity (95% CI, 96.38% to 100%), while expired tests exhibited 99% sensitivity (95% CI, 94.61% to 99.99%), demonstrating a statistically insignificant 1% difference (95% CI, -2.49% to 4.49%; P = 0.56). Expired rapid antigen tests had fainter lines than the unexpired tests at each viral concentration. The expired rapid antigen tests at the LOD were only just visible. These findings carry significant implications for waste management, cost efficiency, and supply chain resilience in pandemic readiness efforts. They also provide critical insights for formulating clinical guidelines for interpreting results from expired kits. In light of expert warnings of a potential outbreak of a severity rivaling the Omicron variant, our study underscores the importance of maximizing the utility of expired antigen testing kits in managing future health emergencies. IMPORTANCE The study examining the reliability of expired antigen testing kits in the context of COVID-19 has significant real-world implications. By demonstrating that these expired kits retain their sensitivity in detecting the virus, this work provides evidence that expired kits can still be utilized, reducing waste and optimizing resources in health care systems. These findings are especially crucial in light of potential future coronavirus outbreaks and the need to be prepared. The study's outcomes have the potential to contribute to waste management efforts, cost efficiency, and supply chain resilience, ensuring that diagnostic tests remain readily available for effective public health interventions. Furthermore, it provides critical insights for formulating clinical guidelines on interpreting results from expired kits, enhancing the accuracy of testing outcomes, and supporting informed decision-making. Ultimately, this work holds great importance in maximizing the utility of expired antigen testing kits, safeguarding public health, and enhancing pandemic readiness on a global scale.

Adductor Canal Blocks Are Not Associated With Improved Early Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Background: As length of stay after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continues to shorten, interventions that may reduce early postoperative pain and complications must be studied. Peripheral nerve block is being explored as a potential means of improving pain management. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of adductor canal block (ACB) on postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing TKA. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 565 patients who received unilateral TKA under spinal anesthesia with a periarticular anesthetic injection. Patients were divided by ACB status. Univariate comparisons and multivariate regression were used to compare outcomes for patients receiving ACBs vs those who did not. Results: Of the 565 patients, 167 received an ACB, and 398 did not. Patients who received an ACB were less likely to require nausea medication during the immediate postoperative period. Length of stay, narcotic consumption, rate of discharge to home, postanesthesia care unit recovery time, urinary retention, ability to complete physical therapy, and 30-day readmission rate did not differ significantly between groups. After risk adjustment, the only significant finding was decreased likelihood of nausea in patients receiving an ACB. Conclusion: ACBs appear to have little to no significant impact on early clinical outcomes in patients having TKA under spinal anesthesia with a periarticular anesthetic injection. Further study of larger patient cohorts is required to validate these findings.

Patients From Medically Underserved Areas Are at Increased Risk for Nonhome Discharge and Emergency Department Return After Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Maryland Health Enterprise Zones (MHEZs) were introduced in 2012 and encompass underserved areas and those with reduced access to healthcare providers. Across the United States many underserved and minority populations experience poorer total joint arthroplasty (TJA) outcomes seemingly because they reside in underserved areas. The purpose of this study is to identify and quantify the relationship between living in an MHEZ and TJA outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective review of 11,451 patients undergoing primary TJA at a single institution from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2020 was conducted. Patients were classified based on whether they resided in an MHEZ. Statistical analyses were used to compare outcomes for TJA patients who live in MHEZ and those who do not. RESULTS: Of the 11,451 patients, 1057 patients lived in MHEZ and 10,394 patients did not. After risk adjustment, patients who live in an MHEZ were more likely to return to the emergency department within 90 days postoperatively and were less likely to be discharged home than those patients who do not live in an MHEZ. CONCLUSION: Total joint arthroplasty patients residing in MHEZ appear to present with poorer overall health as measured by increased American Society of Anesthesiologists and Hierarchical Condition Categories scores, and they are less likely to be discharged home and more likely to return to the emergency department within 90 days. Several factors associated with these findings such as socioeconomic factors, household composition, housing type, disability, and transportation may be modifiable and should be targets of future population health initiatives.