Search

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., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

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 × 10 2 50% tissue culture infective dose/mL [TCID 50 /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., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

SARS-CoV-2 continues to develop new, increasingly infectious variants including delta and omicron. We evaluated the efficacy of the Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test against Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in 1,054 pediatric participants presenting to a high-volume Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing site while the delta variant was predominant. Both tests utilized anterior nares swabs. Participants were grouped by COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. 5.2% of samples tested positive by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. For all participants, sensitivity of the BinaxNOW was 92.7% (95% CI 82.4%-98.0%), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 97.0%-98.8%). For symptomatic participants, positive predictive value (PPV) was 72.7% (95% CI 54.5%-86.7%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.2% (95% CI 98.2%-100%). Among asymptomatic participants, PPV was 71.4% (95% CI 53.7%-85.4%) and NPV was 99.7% (95% CI 99.0%-100%). Our reported sensitivity and NPV are higher than other pediatric studies, potentially because of higher viral load from the delta variant, but specificity and PPV are lower. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of nearly 92% in both symptomatic and asymptomatic children when performed at a high-throughput setting during the more transmissible delta variant dominant period. The test may play an invaluable role in asymptomatic screening and keeping children safe in school.

Rapid antigen tests are simple to perform and provide results within 15 min. We describe our implementation and assess performance of the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Test (Abbott Laboratories) in 6,099 adults at a self-referred walk-up testing site. Participants were grouped by self-reported COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. Most (89%) were asymptomatic, of whom 17% reported potential exposure. Overall test sensitivity compared with reference laboratory reverse-transcription [RT] PCR testing was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75%, 86%). It was higher in symptomatic (87%; 95% CI 80%, 91%) than asymptomatic (71%; 95% CI 61%, 80%) individuals. Sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 66%, 91%) for asymptomatic individuals with potential exposure and 64% (95% CI 51%, 76%) for those with no exposure. Specificity was greater than 99% for all groups. BinaxNOW has high accuracy among symptomatic individuals and is below the FDA threshold for emergency use authorization in asymptomatic individuals. Nonetheless, rapid antigen testing quickly identifies positive among those with symptoms and/or close contact exposure and could expedite isolation and treatment. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of 87% in symptomatic and 71% asymptomatic individuals when performed by health care workers in a high-throughput setting. The performance may expedite isolation decisions or referrals for time-sensitive monoclonal antibody treatment in communities where timely COVID PCR tests are unavailable.

Background : Hospitalized patients with diabetes are at risk of complications and longer length of stay (LOS). Inpatient Diabetes Management Services (IDMS) are known to be beneficial; however, their impact on patient care measures in community, non-teaching hospitals, is unknown. Objectives : To evaluate whether co-managing patients with diabetes by the IDMS team reduces LOS and 30-day readmission rate (30DR). Methods : This retrospective quality improvement cohort study analyzed LOS and 30DR among patients with diabetes admitted to a community hospital. The IDMS medical team consisted of an endocrinologist, nurse practitioner, and diabetes educator. The comparison group consisted of hospitalized patients with diabetes under standard care of attending physicians (mostly internal medicine-trained hospitalists). The relationship between study groups and outcome variables was assessed using Generalized Estimating Equation models. Results : 4,654 patients with diabetes (70.8 ± 0.2 years old) were admitted between January 2016 and May 2017. The IDMS team co-managed 18.3% of patients, mostly with higher severity of illness scores (p < 0.0001). Mean LOS in patients co-managed by the IDMS team decreased by 27%. Median LOS decreased over time in the IDMS group (p = 0.046), while no significant decrease was seen in the comparison group. Mean 30DR in patients co-managed by the IDMS decreased by 10.71%. Median 30DR decreased among patients co-managed by the IDMS (p = 0.048). Conclusions : In a community hospital setting, LOS and 30DR significantly decreased in patients co-managed by a specialized diabetes team. These changes may be translated into considerable cost savings.

Background: Limited research exists regarding views of patients, oncology specialists, and primary care providers (PCPs) concerning breast cancer survivorship care., Objective: To qualitatively explore the needs and priorities of breast cancer survivors, oncology specialists, and PCPs., Methods: Focus groups were conducted of survivors (21 in 5 groups), PCPs (15 in 2 groups), and oncology specialists (16 in 2 groups). One survivor group consisted of four African-Americans. Discussions used a semi-structured guide, were transcribed verbatim, and were analyzed qualitatively. Groups explored transitions to follow-up, communication, patient needs, and provider roles., Results: Survivors form intense relationships with specialists for reassurance and expertise. Many believed PCPs lacked necessary oncology expertise. Survivors reported psychosocial and communication issues. African-Americans cited concerns about access to care and clinical trials, as well as taboos to discussing cancer. Specialists reported that they struggle with discharging survivors due to protective relationships. PCPs were concerned about time and training to provide survivorship care and communication problems with oncologists. Written survivorship care plans were regarded by all groups as possibly helpful, but insufficient to ease the transition., Conclusions: Breast cancer patients may experience difficulties transitioning to survivorship, including ongoing psychosocial issues. African-American patients may face additional and unique barriers to successful survivorship. Oncology specialists may have concerns about discharging cherished patients. These findings suggest a psychological component that may influence the use of written survivorship care plans. PCPs may need additional training and greater access to specialists in order to care for survivors.