PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Papenburg, Jesse
AU  - Campbell, Jonathon R.
AU  - Caya, Chelsea
AU  - Dion, Cynthia
AU  - Corsini, Rachel
AU  - Cheng, Matthew P.
AU  - Menzies, Dick
AU  - Yansouni, Cedric P
TI  - Adequacy of serial self-performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-detection testing for longitudinal mass screening in the workplace
AID  - 10.1101/2022.02.10.22270805
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.02.10.22270805
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/13/2022.02.10.22270805.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/13/2022.02.10.22270805.full
AB  - Importance Longitudinal mass testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) for serial screening of asymptomatic persons has been proposed for preventing SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. The feasibility of this strategy relies on implementation of accurate self-performed RADT testing where people live, work, or attend school.Objective To quantify the adequacy of serial self-performed SARS-CoV-2 RADT testing in the workplace, in terms of the frequency of correct execution of procedural steps and accurate interpretation of the range of possible RADT results. We compared results using the instructions provided by the manufacturer to those with modified instructions that were informed by the most frequent or most critical errors we observed.Design Repeated cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study performed prospectively in the field.Setting Businesses in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, with at least 2 active cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Participants Untrained, asymptomatic persons in their workplace, not meeting Public Health quarantine criteria.Exposures A Modified Quick Reference Guide compared to the original manufacturer’s instructions.Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) The difference in the proportions of correctly performed procedural steps, and the difference in proportions of correctly interpreted RADT proficiency panel results. The secondary outcome, among subjects with two self-testing visits, compared the second to the first self-test visit using the same measures.Results Overall, 1892 tests were performed among 647 subjects. For self-test visit 1, significantly better accuracy in test interpretation was observed using the Modified Quick Reference Guide for weak positive (55.6% vs. 12.3%; 43.3 percentage point improvement, 95% confidence interval [CI] 33.0%-53.8%), positive (89.6% vs. 51.5%; 38.1% difference, 95%CI 28.5%-47.5%), strong positive (95.6% vs. 84.0%; 11.6% improvement, 95%CI 6.8%-16.3%) and invalid (87.3% vs. 77.3%; 10.0% improvement, 95%CI 3.8%-16.3%) tests. Use of the modified guide was associated with smaller, statistically significant, improvements on self-test visit 2. For procedural steps identified as critical for the validity of test results, adherence to procedural testing steps did not differ meaningfully according to instructions provided or reader experience.Conclusions and Relevance Longitudinal mass RADT testing for SARS-CoV-2 can be accurately self-performed in an intended-use setting; this work provides evidence for how to optimise performance.Questio Do untrained users correctly perform and interpret the results of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) in the workplace, and how can their performance be optimised?Findings In this prospective field evaluation of self-performed SARS-CoV-2 RADT in an intended-use setting, we found that the accuracy of RADT interpretation was poor when the manufacturer’s instructions were used. A Modified Quick Reference Guide yielded significantly better user performance.Meaning Longitudinal mass RADT testing for SARS-CoV-2 can be accurately self-performed in an intended-use setting; this work provides evidence for how to optimise performance.Competing Interest StatementJP reports grants from MedImmune, Sanofi Pasteur, Merck; grants and personal fees from AbbVie; personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, all outside the submitted work. MPC reports personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board), personal fees from nplex biosciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board), outside the submitted work. He is the co-founder of Kanvas Biosciences and owns equity in the company. In addition, MPC has a patent Methods for detecting tissue damage, graft versus host disease, and infections using cell-free DNA profiling pending, and a patent Methods for assessing the severity and progression of SARS-CoV-2 infections using cell-free DNA pending. CPY reports being on an Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) for Medicago Inc. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by grants from the Québec Ministry of Health and Social Services and the Trottier Family Foundation. C.P.Y holds a Chercheur-boursier clinicien career award from the Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé (FRQS). The funders gave feedback on study design but had no role in data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (MP-37-2022-7762).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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.