University of Massachusetts Medical School Faculty Publications

UMMS Affiliation

Division of Infectious Disease and Immunology, Department of Medicine

Publication Date

2021-01-12

Document Type

Article Preprint

Disciplines

Analytical, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment | Immunology and Infectious Disease | Infectious Disease | Public Health | Virus Diseases

Abstract

Background: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 antigens (Ag) that can be performed at point-of-care (POC) can supplement molecular testing and help mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. Deployment of an Ag RDT requires an understanding of its operational and performance characteristics under real-world conditions and in relevant subpopulations. We evaluated the Abbott BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Ag Card in a high-throughput, drive-through, free community testing site in Massachusetts (MA) using anterior nasal (AN) swab RT-PCR for clinical testing.

Methods: Individuals presenting for molecular testing in two of seven lanes were offered the opportunity to also receive BinaxNOW testing. Dual AN swabs were collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic children (< 18 years) and adults. BinaxNOW testing was performed in a testing pod with temperature/humidity monitoring. One individual performed testing and official result reporting for each test, but most tests had a second independent reading to assess inter-operator agreement. Positive BinaxNOW results were scored as faint, medium, or strong. Positive BinaxNOW results were reported to patients by phone and they were instructed to isolate pending RT-PCR results. The paired RT-PCR result was the reference for sensitivity and specificity calculations.

Results: Of 2482 participants, 1380 adults and 928 children had paired RT-PCR/BinaxNOW results and complete symptom data. 974/1380 (71%) adults and 829/928 (89%) children were asymptomatic. BinaxNOW had 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90.0-99.3) sensitivity and 100% (98.6-100.0) specificity in adults within 7 days of symptoms, and 84.6% (65.1-95.6) sensitivity and 100% (94.5-100.0) specificity in children within 7 days of symptoms. Sensitivity and specificity in asymptomatic adults were 70.2% (56.6-81.6) and 99.6% (98.9-99.9), respectively, and in asymptomatic children were 65.4% (55.6-74.4) and 99.0% (98.0-99.6), respectively. By cycle threshold (Ct) value cutoff, sensitivity in all subgroups combined (n=292 RT-PCR-positive individuals) was 99.3% with Ct ≤25, 95.8% with ≤30, and 81.2% with ≤35. Twelve false positive BinaxNOW results (out of 2308 tests) were observed; in all twelve, the test bands were faint but otherwise normal, and were noted by both readers. One invalid BinaxNOW result was identified. Inter-operator agreement (positive versus negative BinaxNOW result) was 100% (n = 2230/2230 double reads). Each operator was able to process 20 RDTs per hour. In a separate set of 30 specimens (from individuals with symptoms ≤7 days) run at temperatures below the manufacturer’s recommended range (46-58.5°F), sensitivity was 66.7% and specificity 95.2%.

Conclusions: BinaxNOW had very high specificity in both adults and children and very high sensitivity in newly symptomatic adults. Overall, 95.8% sensitivity was observed with Ct ≤ 30. These data support public health recommendations for use of the BinaxNOW test in adults with symptoms for ≤7 days without RT-PCR confirmation. Excellent inter-operator agreement indicates that an individual can perform and read the BinaxNOW test alone. A skilled laboratorian can perform and read 20 tests per hour. Careful attention to temperature is critical.

Keywords

Infectious Diseases, rapid diagnostic tests, SARS-CoV-2 antigens, point-of-care, COVID-19 pandemic, Abbott BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Ag Card, Massachusetts

Rights and Permissions

The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

DOI of Published Version

10.1101/2021.01.09.21249499

Source

medRxiv 2021.01.09.21249499; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.09.21249499. Link to preprint on medRxiv.

Comments

This article is a preprint. Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review.

Full author list omitted for brevity. For the full list of authors, see article.

Journal/Book/Conference Title

medRxiv

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Share

COinS