RESUMO
BackgroundThe extent to which vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 contribute to transmission is unclear. During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant outbreak among incarcerated persons with high vaccination rates in a federal prison, we assessed markers of viral shedding in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. MethodsConsenting incarcerated persons with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection provided mid-turbinate nasal specimens daily for 10 consecutive days and reported symptom data via questionnaire. Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), viral whole genome sequencing, and viral culture was performed on these nasal specimens. Duration of RT-PCR positivity and viral culture positivity was assessed using survival analysis. ResultsA total of 978 specimens were provided by 95 participants, of whom 78 (82%) were fully vaccinated and 17 (18%) were not fully vaccinated. No significant differences were detected in duration of RT-PCR positivity among fully vaccinated participants (median: 13 days) versus those not fully vaccinated (median: 13 days; p=0.50), or in duration of culture positivity (medians: 5 days and 5 days; p=0.29). Among fully vaccinated participants, overall duration of culture positivity was shorter among Moderna vaccine recipients versus Pfizer (p=0.048) or Janssen (p=0.003) vaccine recipients. ConclusionsAs this field continues to develop, clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons. These findings are critically important, especially in congregate settings where viral transmission can lead to large outbreaks.
RESUMO
BackgroundPerformance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests among children are limited despite the need for point-of-care testing in school and childcare settings. We describe children seeking SARS-CoV-2 testing at a community site and compare antigen test performance to real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and viral culture. MethodsTwo anterior nasal specimens were self-collected for BinaxNOW antigen and RT-PCR testing, along with demographics, symptoms, and exposure information from individuals [≥]5 years at a community testing site. Viral culture was attempted on residual antigen or RT-PCR positive specimens. Demographic and clinical characteristics, and the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, were compared among children (<18 years) and adults. ResultsAbout one in ten included specimens were from children (225/2110); 16.4% (37/225) were RT-PCR positive. Cycle threshold values were similar among RT-PCR positive specimens from children and adults (22.5 vs 21.3, p=0.46) and among specimens from symptomatic and asymptomatic children (22.5 vs 23.2, p=0.39). Sensitivity of antigen test compared to RT-PCR was 73.0% (27/37) among specimens from children and 80.8% (240/297) among specimens from adults; among specimens from children, specificity was 100% (188/188), positive and negative predictive value were 100% (27/27) and 94.9% (188/198) respectively. Virus was isolated from 51.4% (19/37) of RT-PCR positive pediatric specimens; all 19 had positive antigen test results. ConclusionsWith lower sensitivity relative to RT-PCR, antigen tests may not diagnose all positive COVID-19 cases; however, antigen testing identified children with live SARS-CoV-2 virus.
RESUMO
Repeating the BinaxNOW antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 by two groups of readers within 30 minutes resulted in high concordance (98.9%) in 2,110 encounters. BinaxNOW test sensitivity was 77.2% (258/334) compared to real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Repeating antigen testing on the same day did not significantly improve test sensitivity while specificity remained high.
RESUMO
BackgroundAntigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 offer advantages over nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs, such as RT-PCR), including lower cost and rapid return of results, but show reduced sensitivity. Public health organizations continue to recommend different strategies for utilizing NAATs and antigen tests in various settings. There has not yet been a quantitative comparison of the expected performance of these strategies. MethodsWe utilized a decision analysis approach to simulate the expected outcomes of six algorithms for implementing NAAT and antigen testing, analogous to testing strategies recommended by public health organizations. Each algorithm was simulated 50,000 times for four SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence levels ranging from 5% to 20% in a population of 100000 persons seeking testing. Primary outcomes were number of missed cases, number of false-positive diagnoses, and total test volumes. Outcome medians and 95% uncertainty ranges (URs) were reported. ResultsAlgorithms that use NAATs to confirm all negative antigen results minimized missed cases but required high NAAT capacity: 92,200 (95% UR: 91,200-93,200) tests (in addition to 100,000 antigen tests) at 10% prevalence. Substituting repeat antigen testing in lieu of NAAT confirmation of all initial negative antigen tests resulted in 2,280 missed cases (95% UR: 1,507-3,067) at 10% prevalence. Selective use of NAATs to confirm antigen results when discordant with symptom status (e.g., symptomatic persons with negative antigen results) resulted in the most efficient use of NAATs, with 25 NAATs (95% UR: 13-57) needed to detect one additional case at 10% prevalence compared to exclusive use of antigen tests. ConclusionsNo single SARS-CoV-2 testing algorithm is likely to be optimal across settings with different levels of prevalence and for all programmatic priorities; each presents a trade-off between prioritized outcomes and resource constraints. This analysis provides a framework for selecting setting-specific strategies to achieve acceptable balances and trade-offs between programmatic priorities and constraints. DisclaimerThe findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
