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.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests to Detect Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection : A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The performance of rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) for screening asymptomatic and symptomatic persons for SARS-CoV-2 is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of Ag-RDTs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 among symptomatic and asymptomatic participants. DESIGN: This prospective cohort study enrolled participants between October 2021 and January 2022. Participants completed Ag-RDTs and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 every 48 hours for 15 days. SETTING: Participants were enrolled digitally throughout the mainland United States. They self-collected anterior nasal swabs for Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR testing. Nasal swabs for RT-PCR were shipped to a central laboratory, whereas Ag-RDTs were done at home. PARTICIPANTS: Of 7361 participants in the study, 5353 who were asymptomatic and negative for SARS-CoV-2 on study day 1 were eligible. In total, 154 participants had at least 1 positive RT-PCR result. MEASUREMENTS: The sensitivity of Ag-RDTs was measured on the basis of testing once (same-day), twice (after 48 hours), and thrice (after a total of 96 hours). The analysis was repeated for different days past index PCR positivity (DPIPPs) to approximate real-world scenarios where testing initiation may not always coincide with DPIPP 0. Results were stratified by symptom status. RESULTS: Among 154 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 97 were asymptomatic and 57 had symptoms at infection onset. Serial testing with Ag-RDTs twice 48 hours apart resulted in an aggregated sensitivity of 93.4% (95% CI, 90.4% to 95.9%) among symptomatic participants on DPIPPs 0 to 6. When singleton positive results were excluded, the aggregated sensitivity on DPIPPs 0 to 6 for 2-time serial testing among asymptomatic participants was lower at 62.7% (CI, 57.0% to 70.5%), but it improved to 79.0% (CI, 70.1% to 87.4%) with testing 3 times at 48-hour intervals. LIMITATION: Participants tested every 48 hours; therefore, these data cannot support conclusions about serial testing intervals shorter than 48 hours. CONCLUSION: The performance of Ag-RDTs was optimized when asymptomatic participants tested 3 times at 48-hour intervals and when symptomatic participants tested 2 times separated by 48 hours. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health RADx Tech program.

Design and implementation of a digital site-less clinical study of serial rapid antigen testing to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: Rapid antigen detection tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 with emergency use authorization generally include a condition of authorization to evaluate the test's performance in asymptomatic individuals when used serially. We aim to describe a novel study design that was used to generate regulatory-quality data to evaluate the serial use of Ag-RDT in detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus among asymptomatic individuals. Methods: This prospective cohort study used a siteless, digital approach to assess longitudinal performance of Ag-RDT. Individuals over 2 years old from across the USA with no reported COVID-19 symptoms in the 14 days prior to study enrollment were eligible to enroll in this study. Participants throughout the mainland USA were enrolled through a digital platform between October 18, 2021 and February 15, 2022. Participants were asked to test using Ag-RDT and molecular comparators every 48 hours for 15 days. Enrollment demographics, geographic distribution, and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates are reported. Key Results: A total of 7361 participants enrolled in the study, and 492 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including 154 who were asymptomatic and tested negative to start the study. This exceeded the initial enrollment goals of 60 positive participants. We enrolled participants from 44 US states, and geographic distribution of participants shifted in accordance with the changing COVID-19 prevalence nationwide. Conclusions: The digital site-less approach employed in the "Test Us At Home" study enabled rapid, efficient, and rigorous evaluation of rapid diagnostics for COVID-19 and can be adapted across research disciplines to optimize study enrollment and accessibility.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests Based on Symptom Onset and Close Contact Exposure: A secondary analysis from the Test Us At Home prospective cohort study.

Background: The performance of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 (Ag-RDT) in temporal relation to symptom onset or exposure is unknown, as is the impact of vaccination on this relationship. Objective: To evaluate the performance of Ag-RDT compared with RT-PCR based on day after symptom onset or exposure in order to decide on 'when to test'. Design Setting and Participants: The Test Us at Home study was a longitudinal cohort study that enrolled participants over 2 years old across the United States between October 18, 2021 and February 4, 2022. All participants were asked to conduct Ag-RDT and RT-PCR testing every 48 hours over a 15-day period. Participants with one or more symptoms during the study period were included in the Day Post Symptom Onset (DPSO) analyses, while those who reported a COVID-19 exposure were included in the Day Post Exposure (DPE) analysis. Exposure: Participants were asked to self-report any symptoms or known exposures to SARS-CoV-2 every 48-hours, immediately prior to conducting Ag-RDT and RT-PCR testing. The first day a participant reported one or more symptoms was termed DPSO 0, and the day of exposure was DPE 0. Vaccination status was self-reported. Main Outcome and Measures: Results of Ag-RDT were self-reported (positive, negative, or invalid) and RT-PCR results were analyzed by a central laboratory. Percent positivity of SARS-CoV-2 and sensitivity of Ag-RDT and RT-PCR by DPSO and DPE were stratified by vaccination status and calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Results: A total of 7,361 participants enrolled in the study. Among them, 2,086 (28.3%) and 546 (7.4%) participants were eligible for the DPSO and DPE analyses, respectively. Unvaccinated participants were nearly twice as likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than vaccinated participants in event of symptoms (PCR+: 27.6% vs 10.1%) or exposure (PCR+: 43.8% vs. 22.2%). The highest proportion of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals tested positive on DPSO 2 and DPE 5-8. Performance of RT-PCR and Ag-RDT did not differ by vaccination status. Ag-RDT detected 78.0% (95% Confidence Interval: 72.56-82.61) of PCR-confirmed infections by DPSO 4. For exposed participants, Ag-RDT detected 84.9% (95% CI: 75.0-91.4) of PCR-confirmed infections by day five post-exposure (DPE 5). Conclusions and Relevance: Performance of Ag-RDT and RT-PCR was highest on DPSO 0-2 and DPE 5 and did not differ by vaccination status. These data suggests that serial testing remains integral to enhancing the performance of Ag-RDT.

Finding a Needle in a Haystack: Design and Implementation of a Digital Site-less Clinical Study of Serial Rapid Antigen Testing to Identify Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Background: Rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 with Emergency Use Authorization generally include a condition of authorization to evaluate the test's performance in asymptomatic individuals when used serially. Objective: To describe a novel study design to generate regulatory-quality data to evaluate serial use of Ag-RDT in detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus among asymptomatic individuals. Design: Prospective cohort study using a decentralized approach. Participants were asked to test using Ag-RDT and molecular comparators every 48 hours for 15 days. Setting: Participants throughout the mainland United States were enrolled through a digital platform between October 18, 2021 and February 15, 2022. Ag-RDTs were completed at home, and molecular comparators were shipped to a central laboratory. Participants: Individuals over 2 years old from across the U.S. with no reported COVID-19 symptoms in the 14 days prior to study enrollment were eligible to enroll in this study. Measurements: Enrollment demographics, geographic distribution, and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates are reported. Key Results: A total of 7,361 participants enrolled in the study, and 492 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including 154 who were asymptomatic and tested negative to start the study. This exceeded the initial enrollment goals of 60 positive participants. We enrolled participants from 44 U.S. states, and geographic distribution of participants shifted in accordance with the changing COVID-19 prevalence nationwide. Limitations: New, complex workflows required significant operational and data team support. Conclusions: The digital site-less approach employed in the 'Test Us At Home' study enabled rapid, efficient, and rigorous evaluation of rapid diagnostics for COVID-19, and can be adapted across research disciplines to optimize study enrollment and accessibility.

Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests to Detect Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Background: Performance of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 (Ag-RDT) varies over the course of an infection, and their performance in screening for SARS-CoV-2 is not well established. We aimed to evaluate performance of Ag-RDT for detection of SARS-CoV-2 for symptomatic and asymptomatic participants. Methods: Participants >2 years old across the United States enrolled in the study between October 2021 and February 2022. Participants completed Ag-RDT and molecular testing (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 every 48 hours for 15 days. This analysis was limited to participants who were asymptomatic and tested negative on their first day of study participation. Onset of infection was defined as the day of first positive RT-PCR result. Sensitivity of Ag-RDT was measured based on testing once, twice (after 48-hours), and thrice (after 96 hours). Analysis was repeated for different Days Post Index PCR Positivity (DPIPP) and stratified based on symptom-status. Results: In total, 5,609 of 7,361 participants were eligible for this analysis. Among 154 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 97 were asymptomatic and 57 had symptoms at infection onset. Serial testing with Ag-RDT twice 48-hours apart resulted in an aggregated sensitivity of 93.4% (95% CI: 89.1-96.1%) among symptomatic participants on DPIPP 0-6. Excluding singleton positives, aggregated sensitivity on DPIPP 0-6 for two-time serial-testing among asymptomatic participants was lower at 62.7% (54.7-70.0%) but improved to 79.0% (71.0-85.3%) with testing three times at 48-hour intervals. Discussion: Performance of Ag-RDT was optimized when asymptomatic participants tested three-times at 48-hour intervals and when symptomatic participants tested two-times separated by 48-hours.

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.

Feasibility of At-Home Serial Testing Using Over-the-Counter SARS-CoV-2 Tests With a Digital Smartphone App for Assistance: Longitudinal Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic necessitates the development of accurate, rapid, and affordable diagnostics to help curb disease transmission, morbidity, and mortality. Rapid antigen tests are important tools for scaling up testing for SARS-CoV-2; however, little is known about individuals' use of rapid antigen tests at home and how to facilitate the user experience. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the feasibility and acceptability of serial self-testing with rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2, including need for assistance and the reliability of self-interpretation. METHODS: A total of 206 adults in the United States with smartphones were enrolled in this single-arm feasibility study in February and March 2021. All participants were asked to self-test for COVID-19 at home using rapid antigen tests daily for 14 days and use a smartphone app for testing assistance and to report their results. The main outcomes were adherence to the testing schedule, the acceptability of testing and smartphone app experiences, and the reliability of participants versus study team's interpretation of test results. Descriptive statistics were used to report the acceptability, adherence, overall rating, and experience of using the at-home test and MyDataHelps app. The usability, acceptability, adherence, and quality of at-home testing were analyzed across different sociodemographic, age, and educational attainment groups. RESULTS: Of the 206 enrolled participants, 189 (91.7%) and 159 (77.2%) completed testing and follow-up surveys, respectively. In total, 51.3% (97/189) of study participants were women, the average age was 40.7 years, 34.4% (65/189) were non-White, and 82% (155/189) had a bachelor's degree or higher. Most (n=133/206, 64.6%) participants showed high testing adherence, meaning they completed over 75% of the assigned tests. Participants' interpretations of test results demonstrated high agreement (2106/2130, 98.9%) with the study verified results, with a κ score of 0.29 (P<.001). Participants reported high satisfaction with self-testing and the smartphone app, with 98.7% (157/159) reporting that they would recommend the self-test and smartphone app to others. These results were consistent across age, race/ethnicity, and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' high adherence to the recommended testing schedule, significant reliability between participants and study staff's test interpretation, and the acceptability of the smartphone app and self-test indicate that self-tests for SARS-CoV-2 with a smartphone app for assistance and reporting is a highly feasible testing modality among a diverse population of adults in the United States.

Concordance of SARS-CoV-2 Results in Self-collected Nasal Swabs vs Swabs Collected by Health Care Workers in Children and Adolescents.

Importance: Despite the expansion of SARS-CoV-2 testing, available tests have not received Emergency Use Authorization for performance with self-collected anterior nares (nasal) swabs from children younger than 14 years because the effect of pediatric self-swabbing on SARS-CoV-2 test sensitivity is unknown. Objective: To characterize the ability of school-aged children to self-collect nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing compared with collection by health care workers. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 197 symptomatic children and adolescents aged 4 to 14 years old. Individuals were recruited based on results of testing in the Children's Healthcare of Atlanta system from July to August 2021. Exposures: Children and adolescents were given instructional material consisting of a short instructional video and a handout with written and visual steps for self-swab collection. Participants first provided a self-collected nasal swab. Health care workers then collected a second specimen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 detection and relative quantitation by cycle threshold (Ct) in self- vs health care worker-collected nasal swabs when tested with a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test with Emergency Use Authorization. Results: Among the study participants, 108 of 194 (55.7%) were male and the median age was 9 years (IQR, 6-11). Of the 196 participants, 87 (44.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 105 (53.6%) tested negative by both self- and health care worker-collected swabs. Two children tested positive by self- or health care worker-collected swab alone; 1 child had an invalid health care worker swab. Compared with health care worker-collected swabs, self-collected swabs had 97.8% (95% CI, 94.7%-100.0%) and 98.1% (95% CI, 95.6%-100.0%) positive and negative percent agreement, respectively, and SARS-CoV-2 Ct values did not differ significantly between groups (mean [SD] Ct, self-swab: 26.7 [5.4] vs health care worker swab: 26.3 [6.0]; P = .65). Conclusions and Relevance: After hearing and seeing simple instructional materials, children and adolescents aged 4 to 14 years self-collected nasal swabs that closely agreed on SARS-CoV-2 detection with swabs collected by health care workers.

Use of a Digital Assistant to Report COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-test Results to Health Departments in 6 US Communities.

Importance: Widespread distribution of rapid antigen tests is integral to the US strategy to address COVID-19; however, it is estimated that few rapid antigen test results are reported to local departments of health. Objective: To characterize how often individuals in 6 communities throughout the United States used a digital assistant to log rapid antigen test results and report them to their local departments of health. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study is based on anonymously collected data from the beneficiaries of the Say Yes! Covid Test program, which distributed more than 3 000 000 rapid antigen tests at no cost to residents of 6 communities (Louisville, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fulton County, Georgia; O'ahu, Hawaii; Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Michigan; and Chattanooga, Tennessee) between April and October 2021. A descriptive evaluation of beneficiary use of a digital assistant for logging and reporting their rapid antigen test results was performed. Interventions: Widespread community distribution of rapid antigen tests. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and proportion of tests logged and reported to the local department of health through the digital assistant. Results: A total of 313 000 test kits were distributed, including 178 785 test kits that were ordered using the digital assistant. Among all distributed kits, 14 398 households (4.6%) used the digital assistant, but beneficiaries reported three-quarters of their rapid antigen test results to their state public health departments (30 965 tests reported of 41 465 total test results [75.0%]). The reporting behavior varied by community and was significantly higher among communities that were incentivized for reporting test results vs those that were not incentivized or partially incentivized (90.5% [95% CI, 89.9%-91.2%] vs 70.5%; [95% CI, 70.0%-71.0%]). In all communities, positive tests were less frequently reported than negative tests (60.4% [95% CI, 58.1%-62.8%] vs 75.5% [95% CI, 75.1%-76.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that application-based reporting with incentives may be associated with increased reporting of rapid tests for COVID-19. However, increasing the adoption of the digital assistant may be a critical first step.

Design and Preliminary Findings of Adherence to the Self-Testing for Our Protection From COVID-19 (STOP COVID-19) Risk-Based Testing Protocol: Prospective Digital Study.

BACKGROUND: Serial testing for SARS-CoV-2 is recommended to reduce spread of the virus; however, little is known about adherence to recommended testing schedules and reporting practices to health departments. OBJECTIVE: The Self-Testing for Our Protection from COVID-19 (STOP COVID-19) study aims to examine adherence to a risk-based COVID-19 testing strategy using rapid antigen tests and reporting of test results to health departments. METHODS: STOP COVID-19 is a 12-week digital study, facilitated using a smartphone app for testing assistance and reporting. We are recruiting 20,000 participants throughout the United States. Participants are stratified into high- and low-risk groups based on history of COVID-19 infection and vaccination status. High-risk participants are instructed to perform twice-weekly testing for COVID-19 using rapid antigen tests, while low-risk participants test only in the case of symptoms or exposure to COVID-19. All participants complete COVID-19 surveillance surveys, and rapid antigen results are recorded within the smartphone app. Primary outcomes include participant adherence to a risk-based serial testing protocol and percentage of rapid tests reported to health departments. RESULTS: As of February 2022, 3496 participants have enrolled, including 1083 high-risk participants. Out of 13,730 tests completed, participants have reported 13,480 (98.18%, 95% CI 97.9%-98.4%) results to state public health departments with full personal identifying information or anonymously. Among 622 high-risk participants who finished the study period, 35.9% showed high adherence to the study testing protocol. Participants with high adherence reported a higher percentage of test results to the state health department with full identifying information than those in the moderate- or low-adherence groups (high: 71.7%, 95% CI 70.3%-73.1%; moderate: 68.3%, 95% CI 66.0%-70.5%; low: 63.1%, 59.5%-66.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results from the STOP COVID-19 study provide important insights into rapid antigen test reporting and usage, and can thus inform the use of rapid testing interventions for COVID-19 surveillance.

If you build it, will they use it? Use of a Digital Assistant for Self-Reporting of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test Results during Large Nationwide Community Testing Initiative.

Importance: Wide-spread distribution of rapid-antigen tests is integral to the United States' strategy to address COVID-19; however, it is estimated that few rapid-antigen test results are reported to local departments of health. Objective: To characterize how often individuals in six communities throughout the United States used a digital assistant to log rapid-antigen test results and report them to their local Department of Health. Design: This prospective cohort study is based on anonymously collected data from the beneficiaries of The Say Yes! Covid Test program, which distributed 3,000,000 rapid antigen tests at no cost to residents of six communities between April and October 2021. We provide a descriptive evaluation of beneficiaries' use of digital assistant for logging and reporting their rapid antigen test results. Main Outcome and Measures: Number and proportion of tests logged and reported to the Department of Health through the digital assistant. Results: A total of 178,785 test kits were ordered by the digital assistant, and 14,398 households used the digital assistant to log 41,465 test results. Overall, a small proportion of beneficiaries used the digital assistant (8%), but over 75% of those who used it reported their rapid antigen test results to their state public health department. The reporting behavior varied between communities and was significantly different for communities that were incentivized for reporting test results (p < 0.001). In all communities, positive tests were less reported than negative tests (60.4% vs 75.5%; p<0.001). Conclusions and Relevance: These results indicate that app-based reporting with incentives may be an effective way to increase reporting of rapid tests for COVID-19; however, increasing the adoption of the digital assistant is a critical first step.

Association of Mass Distribution of Rapid Antigen Tests and SARS-CoV-2 Prevalence: Results from NIH-CDC funded Say Yes! Covid Test program in Michigan.

Importance: Wide-spread distribution of diagnostics is an integral part of the United States’ COVID-19 strategy; however, few studies have assessed the effectiveness of this intervention at reducing transmission of community COVID-19. Objective: To assess the impact of the Say Yes! Covid Test (SYCT!) Michigan program, a population-based program that distributed 20,000 free rapid antigen tests within Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Michigan in June-August 2021, on community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2. Design: This ecological study analyzed cases of SARS-CoV-2 from March to October 2021 reported to the Washtenaw County Health Department. Setting: Washtenaw County, Michigan. Participants: All residents of Washtenaw County. Interventions: Community-wide distribution of 500,000 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 to residents of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Michigan. Each household was limited to one test kit containing 25 rapid antigen tests. Main Outcome and Measures: Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, as measured through 7-day average cases, in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti was compared to the rest of Washtenaw County. A generalized additive model was fitted with non-parametric trends for control and relative differences of trends in the pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention periods to compare intervention municipalities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti to the rest of Washtenaw County. Model results were used to calculate average cases prevented in the post-intervention period. Results: In the post-intervention period, there were significantly lower standardized average cases in the intervention communities of Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti compared to the rest of Washtenaw County (p<0.001). The estimated standardized relative difference between Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti and the rest of Washtenaw County was -0.016 cases per day (95% CI: -0.020 to -0.013), implying that the intervention prevented 40 average cases per day two months into the post-intervention period if trends were consistent. Conclusions and Relevance: Mass distribution of rapid antigen tests may be a useful mitigation strategy to combat community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, especially given the recent relaxation of social distancing and masking requirements.

Daily longitudinal sampling of SARS-CoV-2 infection reveals substantial heterogeneity in infectiousness.

The dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 replication and shedding in humans remain poorly understood. We captured the dynamics of infectious virus and viral RNA shedding during acute infection through daily longitudinal sampling of 60 individuals for up to 14 days. By fitting mechanistic models, we directly estimated viral expansion and clearance rates and overall infectiousness for each individual. Significant person-to-person variation in infectious virus shedding suggests that individual-level heterogeneity in viral dynamics contributes to 'superspreading'. Viral genome loads often peaked days earlier in saliva than in nasal swabs, indicating strong tissue compartmentalization and suggesting that saliva may serve as a superior sampling site for early detection of infection. Viral loads and clearance kinetics of Alpha (B.1.1.7) and previously circulating non-variant-of-concern viruses were mostly indistinguishable, indicating that the enhanced transmissibility of this variant cannot be explained simply by higher viral loads or delayed clearance. These results provide a high-resolution portrait of SARS-CoV-2 infection dynamics and implicate individual-level heterogeneity in infectiousness in superspreading.

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.

Patient-Centered Identification of Meaningful Regulatory Endpoints for Medical Devices to Treat Parkinson's Disease.

Introduction. A growing literature has developed on identifying outcomes that matter to patients. This study demonstrates an approach involving patient and regulatory perspectives to identify outcomes that are meaningful in the context of medical devices for Parkinson's disease (PD). Methods. A systematic process was used for specifying relevant regulatory endpoints by synthesizing inputs of various sources and stakeholders. First, a literature review was conducted to identify important benefits, risks, and other considerations for medical devices to treat PD; patient discussion groups (n = 6) were conducted to refine the list of considerations, followed by a survey (n = 29) to prioritize them; and patient and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewers informed specification of the final endpoints. Two FDA clinicians gave clinical and regulatory perspectives at each step. Results. Movement symptoms were ranked as most important (ranked 1 or 2 by 72% of participants) and psychological and cognitive symptoms as the next most important (ranked 1 or 2 by 52% of participants). Within movement symptoms, falls, impaired movement, bradykinesia, resting tremor, stiffness, and rigidity were ranked highly. Overall, nine attributes were identified and prioritized as patient-centric for use in clinical trial design and quantitative patient preference studies. These attributes were benefits and risks related to therapeutics for PD as well as other considerations, including time until a medical device is available for patient use. Discussion. This prospective approach identified meaningful and relevant benefits, risks, and other considerations that may be used for clinical trial design and quantitative patient preference studies. Although PD was the focus of this study, the approach can be used to study patient perspectives about other disease or treatment areas.

Daily sampling of early SARS-CoV-2 infection reveals substantial heterogeneity in infectiousness.

The dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 replication and shedding in humans remain poorly understood. We captured the dynamics of infectious virus and viral RNA shedding during acute infection through daily longitudinal sampling of 60 individuals for up to 14 days. By fitting mechanistic models, we directly estimate viral reproduction and clearance rates, and overall infectiousness for each individual. Significant person-to-person variation in infectious virus shedding suggests that individual-level heterogeneity in viral dynamics contributes to superspreading. Viral genome load often peaked days earlier in saliva than in nasal swabs, indicating strong compartmentalization and suggesting that saliva may serve as a superior sampling site for early detection of infection. Viral loads and clearance kinetics of B.1.1.7 and non-B.1.1.7 viruses in nasal swabs were indistinguishable, however B.1.1.7 exhibited a significantly slower pre-peak growth rate in saliva. These results provide a high-resolution portrait of SARS-CoV-2 infection dynamics and implicate individual-level heterogeneity in infectiousness in superspreading.

Longitudinal Assessment of Diagnostic Test Performance Over the Course of Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Serial screening is critical for restricting spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by facilitating timely identification of infected individuals to interrupt transmission. Variation in sensitivity of different diagnostic tests at different stages of infection has not been well documented. METHODS: In a longitudinal study of 43 adults newly infected with SARS-CoV-2, all provided daily saliva and nasal swabs for quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), Quidel SARS Sofia antigen fluorescent immunoassay (FIA), and live virus culture. RESULTS: Both RT-qPCR and Quidel SARS Sofia antigen FIA peaked in sensitivity during the period in which live virus was detected in nasal swabs, but sensitivity of RT-qPCR tests rose more rapidly prior to this period. We also found that serial testing multiple times per week increases the sensitivity of antigen tests. CONCLUSIONS: RT-qPCR tests are more effective than antigen tests at identifying infected individuals prior to or early during the infectious period and thus for minimizing forward transmission (given timely results reporting). All tests showed >98% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals if used at least every 3 days. Daily screening using antigen tests can achieve approximately 90% sensitivity for identifying infected individuals while they are viral culture positive.

Longitudinal assessment of diagnostic test performance over the course of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS TOPIC?: Diagnostic tests and sample types for SARS-CoV-2 vary in sensitivity across the infection period. WHAT IS ADDED BY THIS REPORT?: We show that both RTqPCR (from nasal swab and saliva) and the Quidel SARS Sofia FIA rapid antigen tests peak in sensitivity during the period in which live virus can be detected in nasal swabs, but that the sensitivity of RTqPCR tests rises more rapidly in the pre-infectious period. We also use empirical data to estimate the sensitivities of RTqPCR and antigen tests as a function of testing frequency. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE?: RTqPCR tests will be more effective than rapid antigen tests at identifying infected individuals prior to or early during the infectious period and thus for minimizing forward transmission (provided results reporting is timely). All modalities, including rapid antigen tests, showed >94% sensitivity to detect infection if used at least twice per week. Regular surveillance/screening using rapid antigen tests 2-3 times per week can be an effective strategy to achieve high sensitivity (>95%) for identifying infected individuals.

FDA Perspectives on the Regulation of Neuromodulation Devices.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ensures that patients in the United States have access to safe and effective medical devices. The division of neurological and physical medicine devices reviews medical technologies that interface with the nervous system, including many neuromodulation devices. This article focuses on neuromodulation devices and addresses how to navigate the FDA's regulatory landscape to successfully bring devices to patients.