ABSTRACT
Importance At-home rapid COVID-19 tests utilize nasal-swab specimens and require high viral loads to reliably give positive results. Longitudinal studies from the onset of infection have found infectious virus can present in oral specimens days before nasal. Detection and initiation of infection-control practices may therefore be delayed when nasal-swab rapid tests are used, resulting in greater exposure and transmission to contacts.
Objective We assessed whether index cases first identified by rapid nasal-swab COVID-19 tests had more transmission to household contacts than index cases who used other test types (tests with higher analytical sensitivity but longer turnaround times, and/or that utilize non-nasal specimen types).
Design In this observational cohort study, members of households with a recent COVID-19 case were screened for infection at least daily by RT-qPCR on one or more self-collected upper-respiratory specimen types. Participants reported demographic/medical information (including COVID-19 testing), symptom and exposure information, and household infection-control practices. A two-level random intercept model was used to assess the association between the infection outcome of household contacts and each covariable (household size, race/ethnicity, age, vaccination status, viral variant, infection-control practices, and whether a rapid nasal-swab test was used to initially identify the household index case).
Setting Southern California, September 2020—June 2021 and November 2021—March 2022.
Participants Cohort of 370 individuals from 85 households.
Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Transmission was quantified by adjusted secondary attack rates (aSAR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR).
Results An aSAR of 53.6% (95% CI 38.8–68.3%) was observed among households where the index case first tested positive by a rapid nasal-swab COVID-19 test, which was significantly higher than the aSAR for households where the index case utilized another test type (27.2% 95% CI 19.5– 35.0%, P=0.003 pairwise comparisons of predictive margins). We observed an aOR of 4.90 (95% CI 1.65–14.56) for transmission to household contacts when a nasal-swab rapid test was used to identify the index case, compared to other test types.
Conclusions and Relevance Use of nasal-swab rapid COVID-19 tests for initial detection of infection and initiation of infection control may not limit transmission as well as other test types.
Question Does identification of index cases by rapid nasal-swab tests limit household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as well as other test types?
Finding Significantly higher adjusted secondary attack rates and adjusted odds ratios for transmission were observed in households where the index case used a nasal rapid COVID-19 test for initial detection versus other test types.
Meaning The use of nasal-swab rapid COVID-19 tests for initial detection of infection and initiation of infection control may not limit transmission as well as other test types.
Competing Interest Statement
R.F.I. is a cofounder, consultant, and a director and has stock ownership of Talis Biomedical Corp. All other co-authors report no competing interests.
Funding Statement
This study is based on research funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-023124). The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This study was also funded in part by grants from the Ronald and Maxine Linde Center for New Initiatives at the California Institute of Technology (to RFI), a grant from the Jacobs Institute for Molecular Engineering for Medicine at the California Institute of Technology (to RFI), a DGSOM Geffen Fellowship at the University of California, Los Angeles (to AVW), and the John Stauffer Charitable Trust SURF Fellowship at the California Institute of Technology (to JJ).
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:
California Institute of Technology Institutional Review Board (IRB) gave ethical approval for this work.
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
Jenny JI, jji{at}caltech.edu, 626-395-3464
Alexander VILORIA WINNETT, awinnett{at}caltech.edu, 626-395-3464
Natasha SHELBY, tshelby{at}caltech.edu, 626-395-3464
Jessica A. REYES, jayrey628{at}gmail.com, 626-395-3464
Noah W. SCHLENKER, noahschlenker{at}gmail.com, 626-395-3464
Hannah DAVICH, hannahdavich{at}gmail.com, 626-395-3464
Saharai CALDERA, calderasaharai{at}gmail.com. 626-395-3464
Colten TOGNAZZINI, ctognazzini{at}cityofpasadena.net, 626-744-6000
Ying-Ying GOH, ygoh{at}cityofpasadena.net, 626-744-6000
Matthew FEASTER, mfeaster{at}cityofpasadena.net, 626-744-6000
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
