Self-administered versus clinician-performed BinaxNOW COVID rapid test: a comparison of accuracy

Author:

Vaeth Mary Jane E.1,Cheema Minahil2ORCID,Omer Sarah1,Gupta Ishaan3,Sun Kristie J.4ORCID,Mitchell Asia1,Elhabashy Maryam5,Foyez Maisha1,Cheema Aamna6,Javed Binish7,Purekal Sophia3,Rahat Resham3,Michtalik Henry3,Locke Charles3,Kantsiper Melinda8,Campbell James D.9,Hammershaimb E. Adrianne9,Manabe Yukari C.3,Robinson Matthew L.3ORCID,Johnson J. Kristie10,Wilson Lucy E.15,Callahan Charles W.2, ,Siddiqui Zishan K.3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

2. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

3. Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

4. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

5. University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

6. University of Maryland College Park, College Park, Maryland, USA

7. Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, India

8. Division of Hospital Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

9. Department of Pediatrics, Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

10. Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Abstract

ABSTRACT 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. IMPORTANCE Accurate 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.

Publisher

American Society for Microbiology

Reference24 articles.

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2023. In vitro diagnostics EUAs - antigen diagnostic tests for SARS-COV-2. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics-euas-antigen-diagnostic-tests-sars-cov-2

2. Therapy for Early COVID-19

3. The White House. 2022. Fact sheet: the Biden administration to begin distributing at-home rapid COVID-19 tests to Americans for free. Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/14/fact-sheet-the-biden-administration-to-begin-distributing-at-home-rapid-covid-19-tests-to-americans-for-free/

4. American Medical Association. 2022. COVID-19: a physician guide to keeping your practice open. Available from: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/covid-19-physician-guide-keeping-your-practice-open

5. Hick JL Hanfling D Wynia M Toner E. 2021. Crisis standards of care and COVID-19: what did we learn? How do we ensure equity? What should we do? National Academy of Medicine. https://nam.edu/crisis-standards-of-care-and-covid-19-what-did-we-learn- how-do-we-ensure-equity-what-should-we-do/.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3