Abstract
In 731 persons seeking COVID-19 testing at a walk-up San Francisco community site in January 2022, simultaneous nasal rapid antigen testing (BinaxNOW™) and RT-PCR testing was performed. There were 296 (40.5%) positive tests by RT-PCR; 98.5% of a random sample (N=67) were the omicron variant. Sensitivity of a single antigen test was 95.2% (95% CI 92-98%); 82.1% (95% CI 77-87%) and 65.2% (95% CI 60-71%) for Ct threshold of < 30, < 35 and no threshold, respectively. We also compared BinaxNOW™ to RT-PCR from oral cheek swabs to nasal swabs (N=75); oral cheek specimen was significantly less sensitive than nasal swab. A single BinaxNOW™ oral cheek rapid antigen test failed to detect 91% (20 of 22) of specimens that were BinaxNOW™ positive from the standard nasal sampling. In a separate direct comparison of BinaxNOW™ between specimens collected from nasal or throat (tonsillar) swab (N=115), sensitivity was 97.7% for nasal and 48.8% for throat swabs that were PCR-positive on nasal swab with a Ct threshold < 30. Among persons with either a nasal or throat RT-PCR positive swab with Ct<30, BinaxNOW™ sensitivity was 85.7% for nasal and 89.8% for nasal plus throat swabs. BinaxNOW continues to be a very useful diagnostic during the omicron surge; oral (throat or cheek swab) should not replace nasal swabs due to significantly reduced sensitivity compared to nasal. As currently recommended, repeat testing should be done for high-risk persons with an initial negative antigen test result.
Competing Interest Statement
Diane Havlir reports non-financial support for other projects from Gilead Sciences and Abbott
Funding Statement
Funding for this study was provided by UCSF, the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, the San Francisco Department of Public Health, the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, the McKinnon Family Foundation, Carl Kawaja and Wendy Holcombe, Martin and Lesa Romo, Mark and Carrie Casey, and Greg and Lisa Wendt. The BinaxNOW cards were provided by the California Department of Public 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 that 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
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: Diane Havlir reports non-financial support for other projects from Gilead Sciences and Abbott
This revision incorporates additional data addressing the BinaxNOW performance from 115 throat samples.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
