Design and implementation of a digital site-less clinical study of serial rapid antigen testing to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: Rapid antigen detection tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 with emergency use authorization generally include a condition of authorization to evaluate the test's performance in asymptomatic individuals when used serially. We aim to describe a novel study design that was used to generate regulatory-quality data to evaluate the serial use of Ag-RDT in detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus among asymptomatic individuals. Methods: This prospective cohort study used a siteless, digital approach to assess longitudinal performance of Ag-RDT. Individuals over 2 years old from across the USA with no reported COVID-19 symptoms in the 14 days prior to study enrollment were eligible to enroll in this study. Participants throughout the mainland USA were enrolled through a digital platform between October 18, 2021 and February 15, 2022. Participants were asked to test using Ag-RDT and molecular comparators every 48 hours for 15 days. Enrollment demographics, geographic distribution, and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates are reported. Key Results: A total of 7361 participants enrolled in the study, and 492 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including 154 who were asymptomatic and tested negative to start the study. This exceeded the initial enrollment goals of 60 positive participants. We enrolled participants from 44 US states, and geographic distribution of participants shifted in accordance with the changing COVID-19 prevalence nationwide. Conclusions: The digital site-less approach employed in the "Test Us At Home" study enabled rapid, efficient, and rigorous evaluation of rapid diagnostics for COVID-19 and can be adapted across research disciplines to optimize study enrollment and accessibility.

Comparison of Rapid Antigen Tests' Performance Between Delta and Omicron Variants of SARS-CoV-2 : A Secondary Analysis From a Serial Home Self-testing Study.

BACKGROUND: It is important to document the performance of rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDTs) in detecting SARS-CoV-2 variants. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Ag-RDTs in detecting the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variants of SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study that enrolled participants between 18 October 2021 and 24 January 2022. Participants did Ag-RDTs and collected samples for reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing every 48 hours for 15 days. SETTING: The parent study enrolled participants throughout the mainland United States through a digital platform. All participants self-collected anterior nasal swabs for rapid antigen testing and RT-PCR testing. All Ag-RDTs were completed at home, whereas nasal swabs for RT-PCR were shipped to a central laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Of 7349 participants enrolled in the parent study, 5779 asymptomatic persons who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 on day 1 of the study were eligible for this substudy. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity of Ag-RDTs on the same day as the first positive (index) RT-PCR result and 48 hours after the first positive RT-PCR result. RESULTS: A total of 207 participants were positive on RT-PCR (58 Delta, 149 Omicron). Differences in sensitivity between variants were not statistically significant (same day: Delta, 15.5% [95% CI, 6.2% to 24.8%] vs. Omicron, 22.1% [CI, 15.5% to 28.8%]; at 48 hours: Delta, 44.8% [CI, 32.0% to 57.6%] vs. Omicron, 49.7% [CI, 41.6% to 57.6%]). Among 109 participants who had RT-PCR-positive results for 48 hours, rapid antigen sensitivity did not differ significantly between Delta- and Omicron-infected participants (48-hour sensitivity: Delta, 81.5% [CI, 66.8% to 96.1%] vs. Omicron, 78.0% [CI, 69.1% to 87.0%]). Only 7.2% of the 69 participants with RT-PCR-positive results for shorter than 48 hours tested positive by Ag-RDT within 1 week; those with Delta infections remained consistently negative on Ag-RDTs. LIMITATION: A testing frequency of 48 hours does not allow a finer temporal resolution of the analysis of test performance, and the results of Ag-RDTs are based on self-report. CONCLUSION: The performance of Ag-RDTs in persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is not inferior to that in persons with Delta infections. Serial testing improved the sensitivity of Ag-RDTs for both variants. The performance of rapid antigen testing varies on the basis of duration of RT-PCR positivity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Use of a Digital Assistant to Report COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-test Results to Health Departments in 6 US Communities.

Importance: Widespread distribution of rapid antigen tests is integral to the US strategy to address COVID-19; however, it is estimated that few rapid antigen test results are reported to local departments of health. Objective: To characterize how often individuals in 6 communities throughout the United States used a digital assistant to log rapid antigen test results and report them to their local departments of health. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study is based on anonymously collected data from the beneficiaries of the Say Yes! Covid Test program, which distributed more than 3 000 000 rapid antigen tests at no cost to residents of 6 communities (Louisville, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fulton County, Georgia; O'ahu, Hawaii; Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Michigan; and Chattanooga, Tennessee) between April and October 2021. A descriptive evaluation of beneficiary use of a digital assistant for logging and reporting their rapid antigen test results was performed. Interventions: Widespread community distribution of rapid antigen tests. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and proportion of tests logged and reported to the local department of health through the digital assistant. Results: A total of 313 000 test kits were distributed, including 178 785 test kits that were ordered using the digital assistant. Among all distributed kits, 14 398 households (4.6%) used the digital assistant, but beneficiaries reported three-quarters of their rapid antigen test results to their state public health departments (30 965 tests reported of 41 465 total test results [75.0%]). The reporting behavior varied by community and was significantly higher among communities that were incentivized for reporting test results vs those that were not incentivized or partially incentivized (90.5% [95% CI, 89.9%-91.2%] vs 70.5%; [95% CI, 70.0%-71.0%]). In all communities, positive tests were less frequently reported than negative tests (60.4% [95% CI, 58.1%-62.8%] vs 75.5% [95% CI, 75.1%-76.0%]). Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that application-based reporting with incentives may be associated with increased reporting of rapid tests for COVID-19. However, increasing the adoption of the digital assistant may be a critical first step.

COVID-19: a gray swan's impact on the adoption of novel medical technologies.

The COVID-19 pandemic offers a unique context and opportunity to investigate changes in healthcare professional perceptions towards the adoption of novel medical technologies, such as point-of-care technologies (POCTs). POCTs are a nascent technology that has experienced rapid growth as a result of COVID-19 due to their ability to increase healthcare accessibility via near-patient delivery, including at-home. We surveyed healthcare professionals before and during COVID-19 to explore whether the pandemic altered their perceptions about the usefulness of POCTs. Our network analysis method provided a structure for understanding this changing phenomenon. We uncovered that POCTs are not only useful for diagnosing COVID-19, but healthcare professionals also perceive them as increasingly important for diagnosing other diseases, such as cardiovascular, endocrine, respiratory, and metabolic diseases. Healthcare professionals also viewed POCTs as facilitating the humanization of epidemiology by improving disease management/monitoring and strengthening the clinician-patient relationship. As the accuracy and integration of these technologies into mainstream healthcare delivery improves, hurdles to their adoption dissipate, thereby encouraging healthcare professionals to rely upon them more frequently to diagnose, manage, and monitor diseases. The technological advances made in POCTs during COVID-19, combined with shifting positive perceptions of their utility by healthcare professionals, may better prepare us for the next pandemic.

Understanding Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives on Point-of-Care Testing.

Point-of-care testing (POCT) is an emerging technology that provides crucial assistance in delivering healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic led to the accelerated importance of POCT technology due to its in-home accessibility. While POCT use and implementation has increased, little research has been published about how healthcare professionals perceive these technologies. The objective of our study was to examine the current perspectives of healthcare professionals towards POCT. We surveyed healthcare professionals to quantify perceptions of POCT usage, adoption, benefits, and concerns between October 2020 and November 2020. Questions regarding POCT perception were assessed on a 5-point Likert Scale. We received a total of 287 survey responses. Of the respondents, 53.7% were male, 66.6% were white, and 30.7% have been in practice for over 20 years. We found that the most supported benefit was POCTs ability to improve patient management (92%) and that the most supported concern was that POCTs lead to over-testing (30%). This study provides a better understanding of healthcare workers' perspectives on POCT. To improve patient outcomes through the usage of POCT, greater research is needed to assess the needs and concerns of industry and healthcare stakeholders.

Design and Preliminary Findings of Adherence to the Self-Testing for Our Protection From COVID-19 (STOP COVID-19) Risk-Based Testing Protocol: Prospective Digital Study.

BACKGROUND: Serial testing for SARS-CoV-2 is recommended to reduce spread of the virus; however, little is known about adherence to recommended testing schedules and reporting practices to health departments. OBJECTIVE: The Self-Testing for Our Protection from COVID-19 (STOP COVID-19) study aims to examine adherence to a risk-based COVID-19 testing strategy using rapid antigen tests and reporting of test results to health departments. METHODS: STOP COVID-19 is a 12-week digital study, facilitated using a smartphone app for testing assistance and reporting. We are recruiting 20,000 participants throughout the United States. Participants are stratified into high- and low-risk groups based on history of COVID-19 infection and vaccination status. High-risk participants are instructed to perform twice-weekly testing for COVID-19 using rapid antigen tests, while low-risk participants test only in the case of symptoms or exposure to COVID-19. All participants complete COVID-19 surveillance surveys, and rapid antigen results are recorded within the smartphone app. Primary outcomes include participant adherence to a risk-based serial testing protocol and percentage of rapid tests reported to health departments. RESULTS: As of February 2022, 3496 participants have enrolled, including 1083 high-risk participants. Out of 13,730 tests completed, participants have reported 13,480 (98.18%, 95% CI 97.9%-98.4%) results to state public health departments with full personal identifying information or anonymously. Among 622 high-risk participants who finished the study period, 35.9% showed high adherence to the study testing protocol. Participants with high adherence reported a higher percentage of test results to the state health department with full identifying information than those in the moderate- or low-adherence groups (high: 71.7%, 95% CI 70.3%-73.1%; moderate: 68.3%, 95% CI 66.0%-70.5%; low: 63.1%, 59.5%-66.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results from the STOP COVID-19 study provide important insights into rapid antigen test reporting and usage, and can thus inform the use of rapid testing interventions for COVID-19 surveillance.

The RADx Tech Test Verification Core and the ACME POCT in the Evaluation of COVID-19 Testing Devices: A Model for Progress and Change.

Faced with the COVID-19 pandemic, the US system for developing and testing technologies was challenged in unparalleled ways. This article describes the multi-institutional, transdisciplinary team of the "RADxSM Tech Test Verification Core" and its role in expediting evaluations of COVID-19 testing devices. Expertise related to aspects of diagnostic testing was coordinated to evaluate testing devices with the goal of significantly expanding the ability to mass screen Americans to preserve lives and facilitate the safe return to work and school. Focal points included: laboratory and clinical device evaluation of the limit of viral detection, sensitivity, and specificity of devices in controlled and community settings; regulatory expertise to provide focused attention to barriers to device approval and distribution; usability testing from the perspective of patients and those using the tests to identify and overcome device limitations, and engineering assessment to evaluate robustness of design including human factors, manufacturability, and scalability.

The RADx Tech Clinical Studies Core: A Model for Academic Based Clinical Studies.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADxSM) Tech initiative to support the development and commercialization of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) point-of-care test devices. The primary objective of the Clinical Studies Core (CSC) was to perform SARS-CoV-2 device studies involving diverse populations and settings. Within a few months, the infrastructure for clinical studies was developed, including a master protocol, digital study platform, data management system, single IRB, and multi-site partnerships. Data from some studies are being used to support Emergency Use Authorization of novel SARS-CoV-2 test devices. The CSC reduced the typical time and cost of developing medical devices and highlighted the impactful role of academic and NIH partnership in addressing public health needs at a rapid pace during a global pandemic. The structure, deployment, and lessons learned from this experience are widely applicable to future in vitro diagnostic device clinical studies.

New Opportunities and Cautionary Insights about Decentralizing and Deglobalizing Clinical Trials During the Great Lockdown.

The 2020s began with a rare coronavirus (COVID-19) disaster, which led to a pandemic-induced recession and Great Lockdown. In response, there has been a worldwide mobilization of resources to detect, treat, and cure the virus. Some policymakers are advocating for the repatriation of globally distributed healthcare know-how. Without a cure for COVID-19, the ambiguity concerning how coronavirus-related policies will impact international business remains unclear. Through a multi-method approach, our study sheds light on two key healthcare industry trends: decentralization and deglobalization of clinical trials. We offer actionable strategies to not only mitigate these challenges, but also to take advantage of their new opportunities.

A multi-institutional partnership catalyzing the commercialization of medical devices and biotechnology products.

The commercialization of medical devices and biotechnology products is characterized by high failure rates and long development lead times particularly among start-up enterprises. To increase the success rate of these high-risk ventures, the University of Massachusetts Lowell (UML) and University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS) partnered to create key academic support centers with programs to accelerate entrepreneurship and innovation in this industry. In 2008, UML and UMMS founded the Massachusetts Medical Device Development Center (M2D2), which is a business and technology incubator that provides business planning, product prototyping, laboratory services, access to clinical testing, and ecosystem networking to medical device and biotech start-up firms. M2D2 has three physical locations that encompass approximately 40,000 square feet. Recently, M2D2 leveraged these resources to expand into new areas such as health security, point of care technologies for heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders, and rapid diagnostics to detect SARS-CoV-2. Since its inception, M2D2 has vetted approximately 260 medical device and biotech start-up companies for inclusion in its programs and provided active support to more than 80 firms. This manuscript describes how two UMass campuses leveraged institutional, state, and Federal resources to create a thriving entrepreneurial environment for medical device and biotech companies.