A mixed methods study evaluating acceptability of a daily COVID-19 testing regimen with a mobile-app connected, at-home, rapid antigen test: Implications for current and future pandemics.

BACKGROUND: Widespread use of at-home rapid COVID-19 antigen tests has been proposed as an important public health intervention to interrupt chains of transmission. Antigen tests may be preferred over PCR because they provide on-demand results for relatively low cost and can identify people when they are most likely to be infectious, particularly when used daily. Yet the extent to which a frequent antigen testing intervention will result in a positive public health impact for COVID-19 will depend on high acceptability and high adherence to such regimens. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study assessing acceptability of and adherence to a daily at-home mobile-app connected rapid antigen testing regimen among employees of a US-based media company. Acceptability was assessed across seven domains of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS: Among 31 study participants, acceptability of the daily testing intervention was generally high, with participants reporting high perceived effectiveness, intervention coherence, and self-efficacy; positive affective attitude; acceptable degree of burden and opportunity cost; and assessing the intervention as ethical. 71% reported a preference to test daily using an at-home antigen test than weekly employment-based PCR. Mean adherence to the 21-day testing regimen was 88% with 43% of participants achieving 100% adherence, 48% testing at least every other day, and 10% testing less than every other day. CONCLUSIONS: Despite overall high acceptability and adherence, we identified three implementation challenges that must be addressed for frequent serial testing for COVID-19 to be implemented at scale and have a positive public health impact. First, users need guidance on how and when to adapt testing frequencies to different epidemiological conditions. Second, users and institutions need guidelines for how to safely store and share test results. Third, implementation of serial testing strategies must prioritize health equity and protect those most vulnerable to COVID-19.

Development and performance of a point-of-care rapid antigen test for detection of SARS-COV-2 variants.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen-based tests are well-calibrated to infectiousness and have a critical role to play in the COVID-19 public health response. We report the development and performance of a unique lateral flow immunoassay (LFA). Methods: Combinations of several monoclonal antibodies targeting multiple antigenic sites on the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) were isolated, evaluated, and chosen for the development of a LFA termed CoV-SCAN (BioMedomics, Inc.). Clinical point-of-care studies in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals were conducted to evaluate positive predictive agreement (PPA) and negative predictive agreement (NPA) with RT-PCR as comparator. Results: In laboratory testing, CoV-SCAN detected 14 recombinant N-proteins of SARS-CoV-2 variants with sensitivity in the range of 0.2-3.2 ng/mL, and 10 authentic SARS-CoV-2 variants with sensitivity in the range of 1.6-12.5 TCID50/swab. No cross reactivity was observed with other human coronaviruses or other respiratory pathogens. In clinical point-of-care testing on 148 individuals over age 2 with symptoms of ≤5 days, PPA was 87.2% (CI 95: 78.3-94.8%) and NPA was 100% (CI 95: 94.2-100%). In another 884 asymptomatic individuals, PPA was 85.7% (CI 95: 42.1-99.6%) and 99.7% (99.0-99.9%). Overall, CoV-SCAN detected over 97.2% of specimens with CT values <30 and 93.8% of nasal swab specimens with the Omicron variant, even within the first 2 days after symptom onset. Conclusions: The unique construction of CoV-SCAN using two pairs of monoclonal antibodies has resulted in a test with high performance that remains durable across multiple variants in both laboratory and clinical evaluations. CoV-SCAN should identify almost all individuals harboring infectious SARS-CoV-2. Summary: Unique construction of a point-of-care rapid antigen test using two pairs of monoclonal antibodies has led to good performance that remained durable across multiple variants in laboratory and clinical evaluations. Test should identify almost all individuals harboring infectious SARS-CoV-2.

Respiratory viruses in pediatric emergency department patients and their family members.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory viral infections account for a substantial fraction of pediatric emergency department (ED) visits. We examined the epidemiological patterns of seven common respiratory viruses in children presenting to EDs with influenza-like illness (ILI). Additionally, we examined the co-occurrence of viral infections in the accompanying adults and risk factors associated with the acquisition of these viruses. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swab were collected from children seeking medical care for ILI and their accompanying adults (Total N = 1315). Study sites included New York Presbyterian, Bellevue, and Tisch hospitals in New York City. PCR using a respiratory viral panel was conducted, and data on symptoms and medical history were collected. RESULTS: Respiratory viruses were detected in 399 children (62.25%) and 118 (17.5%) accompanying adults. The most frequent pathogen detected was human rhinovirus (HRV) (28.81%). Co-infection rates were 14.79% in children and 8.47% in adults. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and parainfluenza infections occurred more often in younger children. Influenza and HRV occurred more often in older children. Influenza and coronavirus were mostly isolated in winter and spring, RSV in fall and winter and HRV in fall and spring. Children with HRV were more likely to have history of asthma. Adults with the same virus as their child often accompanied ≤ 2-year-old-positive children and were more likely to be symptomatic compared to adults with different viruses. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory viruses, while presenting the same suite of symptoms, possess distinct seasonal cycles and affect individuals differently based on a number of identifiable factors, including age and history of asthma.