Abstract
The widespread existence of expired antigen testing kits in households and potential coronavirus outbreaks necessitate evaluating the reliability of these expired kits. Our study examined BinaxNOW COVID-19 rapid antigen tests 27 months post-manufacture 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. 100 expired and unexpired kits were tested at each concentration for a total of 400 antigen tests. At the LoD (2.32x10^2 TCID50/mL), both expired and unexpired tests displayed 100% sensitivity (95% 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 antigens tests at 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
AP was supported by NIAID contract 75N93021C00045 (Centers of Excellence in Influenza Research and Response and the SARS-CoV-2 Assessment of Viral Evolution Programs). The testing kits were provided by the Maryland Department of Health free of cost.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclosures: AP was supported by NIAID contract 75N93021C00045 (Centers of Excellence in Influenza Research and Response and the SARS-CoV-2 Assessment of Viral Evolution Programs). The testing kits were provided by the Maryland Department of Health free of cost.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
