TY - JOUR
T1 - Self-administered versus clinician-performed BinaxNOW COVID rapid test
T2 - a comparison of accuracy
AU - CONQUER COVID Consortium
AU - Vaeth, Mary Jane E.
AU - Cheema, Minahil
AU - Omer, Sarah
AU - Gupta, Ishaan
AU - Sun, Kristie J.
AU - Mitchell, Asia
AU - Elhabashy, Maryam
AU - Foyez, Maisha
AU - Cheema, Aamna
AU - Javed, Binish
AU - Purekal, Sophia
AU - Rahat, Resham
AU - Michtalik, Henry
AU - Locke, Charles
AU - Kantsiper, Melinda
AU - Campbell, James D.
AU - Hammershaimb, E. Adrianne
AU - Manabe, Yukari C.
AU - Robinson, Matthew L.
AU - Johnson, J. Kristie
AU - Wilson, Lucy E.
AU - Callahan, Charles W.
AU - Siddiqui, Zishan K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2024 Vaeth et al.
PY - 2024/3
Y1 - 2024/3
N2 - We conducted a single-center study at a free community testing site in Baltimore City to assess the accuracy of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. Self-administered BinaxNOW RATs were compared with clinician-performed RATs and against a reference lab molecular testing as the gold standard. Of the 953 participants, 14.9% were positive for SARS- CoV-2 as determined by RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity were similar for both self- and clinician-performed RATs (sensitivity: 83.9% vs 88.2%, P = 0.40; specificity: 99.8% vs 99.6%, P = 0.6). Subgroup comparisons based on age and race yielded similar results. Notably, 5.2% (95% CI: 1.5% to 9.5%) of positive results were potentially missed due to participant misinterpretation of the self-test card. However, the false-positive rate for RATs was reassuringly comparable in accuracy to clinician-administered tests. These findings hold significant implications for physicians prescribing treatment based on patient-reported, self-administered positive test results. Our study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, underscoring their comparable accuracy to clinician-performed RATs, and endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Further studies using other rapid antigen test brands are warranted. IMPORTANCE Accurate and accessible COVID-19 testing is crucial for effective disease control and management. A recent single-center study conducted in Baltimore City examined the reliability of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. The study found that self-administered RATs yielded similar sensitivity and specificity to clinician-performed tests, demonstrating their comparable accuracy. These findings hold significant implications for physicians relying on patient-reported positive test results for treatment decisions. The study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Furthermore, the study highlights the need for further research using different rapid antigen test brands to enhance generalizability. Ensuring affordable and widespread access to self-tests is crucial, particularly in preparation for future respiratory virus seasons and potential waves of reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 variants such as the Omicron variant.
AB - We conducted a single-center study at a free community testing site in Baltimore City to assess the accuracy of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. Self-administered BinaxNOW RATs were compared with clinician-performed RATs and against a reference lab molecular testing as the gold standard. Of the 953 participants, 14.9% were positive for SARS- CoV-2 as determined by RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity were similar for both self- and clinician-performed RATs (sensitivity: 83.9% vs 88.2%, P = 0.40; specificity: 99.8% vs 99.6%, P = 0.6). Subgroup comparisons based on age and race yielded similar results. Notably, 5.2% (95% CI: 1.5% to 9.5%) of positive results were potentially missed due to participant misinterpretation of the self-test card. However, the false-positive rate for RATs was reassuringly comparable in accuracy to clinician-administered tests. These findings hold significant implications for physicians prescribing treatment based on patient-reported, self-administered positive test results. Our study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, underscoring their comparable accuracy to clinician-performed RATs, and endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Further studies using other rapid antigen test brands are warranted. IMPORTANCE Accurate and accessible COVID-19 testing is crucial for effective disease control and management. A recent single-center study conducted in Baltimore City examined the reliability of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. The study found that self-administered RATs yielded similar sensitivity and specificity to clinician-performed tests, demonstrating their comparable accuracy. These findings hold significant implications for physicians relying on patient-reported positive test results for treatment decisions. The study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Furthermore, the study highlights the need for further research using different rapid antigen test brands to enhance generalizability. Ensuring affordable and widespread access to self-tests is crucial, particularly in preparation for future respiratory virus seasons and potential waves of reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 variants such as the Omicron variant.
KW - BinaxNOW COVID-19 rapid antigen tests
KW - COVID-19
KW - COVID-19 detection
KW - COVID-19 test kits
KW - accuracy of COVID-19 tests
KW - clinician-performed tests
KW - polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing
KW - self-administered COVID-19 tests
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85186960820&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85186960820&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1128/spectrum.02525-23
DO - 10.1128/spectrum.02525-23
M3 - Article
C2 - 38349164
AN - SCOPUS:85186960820
SN - 2165-0497
VL - 12
JO - Microbiology Spectrum
JF - Microbiology Spectrum
IS - 3
ER -