Rapid antigen tests, such as the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW), offer results more rapidly (approximately 15-30 minutes) and at a lower cost than do highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) (1). Rapid antigen tests have received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for use in symptomatic persons (2), but data are lacking on test performance in asymptomatic persons to inform expanded screening testing to rapidly identify and isolate infected persons (3). To evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW rapid antigen test, it was used along with real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing to analyze 3,419 paired specimens collected from persons aged ≥10 years at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona, during November 3-17, 2020. Viral culture was performed on 274 of 303 residual real-time RT-PCR specimens with positive results by either test (29 were not available for culture). Compared with real-time RT-PCR testing, the BinaxNOW antigen test had a sensitivity of 64.2% for specimens from symptomatic persons and 35.8% for specimens from asymptomatic persons, with near 100% specificity in specimens from both groups. Virus was cultured from 96 of 274 (35.0%) specimens, including 85 (57.8%) of 147 with concordant antigen and real-time RT-PCR positive results, 11 (8.9%) of 124 with false-negative antigen test results, and none of three with false-positive antigen test results. Among specimens positive for viral culture, sensitivity was 92.6% for symptomatic and 78.6% for asymptomatic individuals. When the pretest probability for receiving positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 is elevated (e.g., in symptomatic persons or in persons with a known COVID-19 exposure), a negative antigen test result should be confirmed by NAAT (1). Despite a lower sensitivity to detect infection, rapid antigen tests can be an important tool for screening because of their quick turnaround time, lower costs and resource needs, high specificity, and high positive predictive value (PPV) in settings * Specimens were used to perform a limiting-dilution inoculation of Vero CCL-81 cells, and cultures showing evidence of cytopathic effect were tested by real-time RT-PCR for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Viral recovery was defined as any culture in which the first passage had an N1 Ct value at least two Ct values lower than the corresponding clinical specimen. † https://www.biorxiv

We used the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card to screen 1,540 asymptomatic college students for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in a low-prevalence setting. Compared with reverse transcription PCR, BinaxNOW showed 20% overall sensitivity; among participants with culturable virus, sensitivity was 60%. BinaxNOW provides point-of-care screening but misses many infections.

Point-of-care antigen tests are an important tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Antigen tests are less sensitive than real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). Data on the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared to rRT-PCR and viral culture by symptom and known exposure status, timing during disease or exposure period and demographic variables are limited. During November 3 rd -17 th , 2020, we collected paired upper respiratory swab specimens to test for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR and Abbott BinaxNOW (BinaxNOW) antigen test at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona. We administered a questionnaire to capture symptoms, known exposure status and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Specimens positive by either test were analyzed by viral culture. Previously we showed overall BinaxNOW sensitivity was 52.5%. Here we showed BinaxNOW sensitivity increased to 65.7% among currently symptomatic individuals reporting a known exposure. BinaxNOW sensitivity was lower among participants with a known exposure and previously symptomatic (32.4%) or never symptomatic (47.1%) within 14 days of testing. Sensitivity was 71.1% in participants within a week of symptom onset. In participants with a known exposure, sensitivity was highest 8-10 days post-exposure (75%). The positive predictive value for recovery of virus in cell culture was 56.7% for BinaxNOW-positive and 35.4% for rRT-PCR-positive specimens. Result reporting time was 2.5 hours for BinaxNOW and 26 hours for rRT-PCR. Point-of-care antigen tests have a shorter turn-around time compared to laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification tests, which allows for more rapid identification of infected individuals. Antigen test sensitivity limitations are important to consider when developing a testing program.

Defining the optimal diagnostic tools for evaluating onchocerciasis elimination efforts in areas co-endemic for other filarial nematodes is imperative. This study compared three published polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods: the -specific qPCR-O150, the pan-filarial qPCR melt curve analysis (MCA), and the O150-PCR enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) currently used for vector surveillance in skin snip biopsies (skin snips) collected from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The pan-filarial qPCR-MCA was compared with species-specific qPCRs for and . Among the 471 skin snips, 47.5%, 43.5%, and 27.0% were positive by qPCR-O150, qPCR-MCA, and O150-PCR ELISA, respectively. Using qPCR-O150 as the comparator, the sensitivity and specificity of qPCR-MCA were 89.3% and 98.0%, respectively, whereas for O150-PCR ELISA, they were 56.7% and 100%, respectively. Although qPCR-MCA identified the presence of and spp. in skin snips, species-specific qPCRs had greater sensitivity and were needed to identify . Most of the qPCR-MCA misclassifications occurred in mixed infections. The reduced sensitivity of O150-PCR ELISA was associated with lower microfilaria burden and with lower amounts of DNA. Although qPCR-MCA identified most of the -positive skin snips, it is not sufficiently robust to be used for stop-mass drug administration (MDA) evaluations in areas co-endemic for other filariae. Because O150-PCR ELISA missed 43.3% of qPCR-O150-positive skin snips, the qPCR-O150 assay is more appropriate for evaluating skin snips of OV-16 + children in stop-MDA assessments. Although improving the sensitivity of the O150-PCR ELISA as an alternative to qPCR might be possible, qPCR-O150 offers distinct advantages aside from increased sensitivity.

Background The objective of our investigation was to better understand barriers to implementation of self-administered antigen screening testing for SARS-CoV-2 at institutions of higher education (IHE). Methods Using the Quidel QuickVue At-Home COVID-19 Test, 1347 IHE students and staff were asked to test twice weekly for seven weeks. We assessed seroconversion using baseline and endline serum specimens. Online surveys assessed acceptability. Results Participants reported 9971 self-administered antigen test results. Among participants who were not antibody positive at baseline, the median number of tests reported was eight. Among 324 participants seronegative at baseline, with endline antibody results and ≥ 1 self-administered antigen test results, there were five COVID-19 infections; only one was detected by self-administered antigen test (sensitivity = 20%). Acceptability of self-administered antigen tests was high. Conclusions Twice-weekly serial self-administered antigen testing in a low prevalence period had low utility in this investigation. Issues of testing fatigue will be important to address in future testing strategies.

Hand hygiene interventions are critical for reducing farmworker hand contamination and preventing the spread of produce-associated illness. Hand hygiene effectiveness may be produce-commodity specific, which could influence implementation strategies. This study's goal was to determine if produce commodity influences the ability of handwashing with soap and water or Two-Step ABHS interventions to reduce soil and bacteria on farmworker hands. Farmworkers (n = 326) harvested produce for 30-90 minutes before engaging in handwashing (cantaloupe, jalapeño, and tomato), Two-Step ABHS (jalapeño and cantaloupe), or no hand hygiene. Hands were rinsed to measure amounts of soil (absorbance at 600 nm) and indicator bacteria (coliforms, Enterococccus, generic Escherichia coli, and Bacteroidales universal [AllBac] and human-specific [BFD] 16S rDNA markers). Without hand hygiene, bacterial concentrations (0.88 to 5.1 log10 CFU/hand) on hands significantly differed by the produce commodity harvested. Moderate significant correlations (ρ = -0.41 to 0.56) between soil load and bacterial concentrations were observed. There were significant produce-commodity specific differences in the ability of handwashing and Two-Step ABHS interventions to reduce soil (P < 0.0001), coliforms (P = 0.002), and Enterococcus (P = 0.003), but not the Bacteroidales markers AllBac (P = 0.4) or BFD (P = 0.3). Contamination was more difficult to remove from cantaloupe farmworker hands. Overall, we found that a Two-Step ABHS intervention was similar to handwashing with soap and water at reducing bacteria on farmworker hands. In sum, produce commodity type should be considered when developing hand hygiene interventions on farms. IMPORTANCE This study demonstrated that the type of produce commodity handled influences the ability of handwashing with soap and water or a Two-Step alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) intervention to reduce soil and bacterial hand contamination. Handwashing with soap and water, as recommended by the FDA's Produce Safety Rule, when tested in three agricultural environments, does not always reduce bacterial loads. Consistent with past results, we found that the Two-Step ABHS method performed similarly to handwashing with soap and water, but also does not always reduce bacterial loads in these contexts. Given the ease of use of the Two-Step ABHS method, which may increase compliance, the Two-Step ABHS method should be further evaluated and possibly considered for implementation in the agricultural environment. Taken together, this study provides important information on hand hygiene effectiveness in three agricultural contexts.

Point-of-care antigen tests are an important tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection, but they are less clinically sensitive than real-time reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR), impacting their efficacy as screening procedures. Our goal in this study was to see whether we could improve this sensitivity by considering antigen test results in combination with other relevant information, namely exposure status and reported symptoms. In November of 2020, we collected 3,419 paired upper respiratory specimens tested by RT-PCR and the Abbott BinaxNOW antigen test at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona. We used symptom, exposure, and antigen testing data to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of various symptom definitions in predicting RT-PCR positivity. Our analysis yielded 6 novel multi-symptom case definitions with and without antigen test results, the best of which overall achieved a Youden’s J index of 0.66, as compared with 0.52 for antigen testing alone. Using a random forest as a guide, we show that this definition, along with our others, does not lose the ability to generalize well to new data despite achieving optimal performance in our sample. Our methodology is broadly applicable, and we have made our code publicly available to aid public health practitioners in developing or fine- tuning their own screening rules.

Point-of-care antigen tests are an important tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection yet are less clinically sensitive than real-time reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR), impacting their efficacy as screening procedures. Our goal in this analysis was to see whether we could improve this sensitivity by considering antigen test results in combination with other relevant information, namely exposure status and reported symptoms. In November of 2020, we collected 3,419 paired upper respiratory specimens tested by RT-PCR and the Abbott BinaxNOW antigen test at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona. We used symptom, exposure, and antigen testing data to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of various symptom definitions in predicting RT-PCR positivity. Our analysis yielded 6 novel multi-symptom case definitions with and without antigen test results, the best of which overall achieved a Youden’s J index of 0.66, as compared with 0.53 for antigen testing alone. Using a random forest as a guide, we show that this definition, along with our others, does not lose the ability to generalize well to new data despite achieving optimal performance in our sample. Our methodology is broadly applicable, and our code is publicly available to aid public health practitioners in developing or fine-tuning their own case definitions.