Search

BackgroundThe 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.ObjectiveTo 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 ParticipantsThe 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.ExposureParticipants 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 MeasuresResults 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.ResultsA 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 RelevancePerformance 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.

ImportanceWidespread 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.ObjectiveTo 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 ParticipantsThis 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.InterventionsWidespread community distribution of rapid antigen tests.Main Outcomes and MeasuresNumber and proportion of tests logged and reported to the local department of health through the digital assistant.ResultsA 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 RelevanceThese 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.

BackgroundPerformance 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.MethodsParticipants >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.ResultsIn 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.DiscussionPerformance 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.

ImportanceWide-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.ObjectiveTo 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.DesignThis 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 MeasuresNumber and proportion of tests logged and reported to the Department of Health through the digital assistantResultsA 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%; pConclusions and RelevanceThese 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.