ABSTRACT
Background COVID-19 oral treatments require initiation within 5 days of symptom onset. Although antigen tests are less sensitive than RT-PCR, rapid results could facilitate entry to treatment. As SARS-CoV-2 variants and host immunity evolve, it is important to characterize the use case for rapid antigen tests for treatment entry.
Methods We collected anterior nasal swabs for BinaxNOW and RT-PCR testing and clinical data at a walk-up, community site in San Francisco, California between January and June 2022. SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences were generated from positive samples and classified according to subtype and variant. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to estimate the expected proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infected persons who would have been diagnosed within 5 days of symptom onset using RT-PCR versus BinaxNOW testing.
Results Among 25,309 persons tested with BinaxNOW, 2,952 had concomitant RT-PCR. 1321/2952 (44.7%) were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive. We identified waves of predominant omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12, BA.4, and BA.5 among 720 sequenced samples. Among 1,321 RT-PCR positive samples, 938/1321 (71%) were detected by BinaxNOW; 95% (774/817) of those with Ct value <30 were detected by BinaxNOW. BinaxNOW detection was consistent over lineages. In analyses to evaluate entry to treatment, BinaxNOW detected 82.7% (410/496, 95% CI: 79-86%) of persons with COVID-19 within 5 days of symptom onset. In comparison, RT-PCR (24-hour turnaround) detected 83.1% (412/496 95% CI: 79-86%) and RT-PCR (48-hour turnaround) detected 66.3% (329/496 95% CI: 62-70%) of persons with COVID-19 within 5 days of symptom onset.
Conclusions BinaxNOW detected high viral load from anterior nasal swabs consistently across omicron sublineages emerging between January and June of 2022. Simulations support BinaxNOW as an entry point for COVID-19 treatment in a community field setting.
Competing Interest Statement
Diane Havlir reports non-financial support for other projects from Gilead Sciences and Abbott
Funding Statement
The funding for this study was provided by UCSF, the Chan-Zuckerberg Biohub, the San Francisco Department of Public Health, the California Department of Health, the McGovern Foundation. The BinaxNOW cards were provided by the California Department of Health
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The UCSF Committee on Human Research determined the study met criteria for public health surveillance. All participants provided informed consent for dual testing.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data are not available
