Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need for rapid and accurate diagnostic tools. In August 2020, the Abbot BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Card test became available as a timely and affordable alternative for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing, but its performance may vary due to factors including timing and symptomatology. This study evaluates BinaxNOW diagnostic performance in diverse epidemiological contexts.
Methods Using RT-PCR as reference, we assessed performance of the BinaxNOW COVID-19 test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in anterior nasal swabs from participants of two studies in Puerto Rico from December 2020 to May 2023. Test performance was assessed by days post symptom onset, collection strategy, vaccination status, symptomatology, repeated testing, and RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values.
Results BinaxNOW demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 84.1% and specificity of 98.8%. Sensitivity peaked within 1–6 days after symptom onset (93.2%) and was higher for symptomatic (86.3%) than asymptomatic (67.3%) participants. Sensitivity declined over the course of infection, dropping from 96.3% in the initial test to 48.4% in testing performed 7–14 days later. BinaxNOW showed 99.5% sensitivity in participants with low Ct values (≤25) but lower sensitivity (18.2%) for participants with higher Cts (36–40).
Conclusions BinaxNOW demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, particularly in early-stage infections and symptomatic participants. In situations where test sensitivity is crucial for clinical decision- making, nucleic acid amplification tests are preferred. These findings highlight the importance of considering clinical and epidemiological context when interpreting test results and emphasize the need for ongoing research to adapt testing strategies to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases and the Center for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Support at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [grant numbers U01CK000437 and U01CK000580 to V.R.A.]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. https://www.cdc.gov/ncezid/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/publichealthgateway/about-cstlts/index.html.
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:
Approval for the COPA project was obtained from the Ponce Medical School Foundation, Inc. Institutional Review Board (protocol number 171110-VR). The Institutional Review Boards at the CDC, Auxilio Mutuo, and Ponce Medical School Foundation approved the SEDSS study protocols 6214, and 120308-VR, respectively. Written consent to participate was obtained from all adult participants and emancipated minors; parental written consent and participant assent were obtained for children.
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
