Comparison of Mid-turbinate Nasal Swabs, Saliva, and Nasopharyngeal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing in Pediatric Outpatients.

CONTEXT.­: Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic children remains integral to care, particularly for supporting return to and attendance in schools. The concordance of SARS-CoV-2 detection in children, using various specimen types, has not been widely studied. OBJECTIVE.­: To compare 3 sample types for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in children, collected and tested at a single facility. DESIGN.­: We prospectively recruited 142 symptomatic and asymptomatic children/young adults into a sample comparison study performed in a single health care system. Each child provided self-collected saliva, and a trained health care provider collected a mid-turbinate nasal swab and nasopharyngeal (NP) swab. Specimens were assayed within 24 hours of collection by using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 on a single testing platform. RESULTS.­: Concurrently collected saliva and mid-turbinate swabs had greater than 95% positive agreement with NP swabs when obtained within 10 days of symptom onset. Positive agreement of saliva and mid-turbinate samples collected from children with symptom onset >10 days prior, or without symptoms, was 82% compared to NP swab samples. Cycle threshold (Ct) values for mid-turbinate nasal samples more closely correlated with Ct values from NP samples than from saliva samples. CONCLUSIONS.­: These findings suggest that all 3 sample types from children are useful for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing by RT-PCR, and that concordance is greatest when the child has had symptoms of COVID-19 within the past 10 days. This study provides scientific justification for using sample types other than the NP swab for SARS-CoV-2 testing in pediatric populations.

Predictive Value of Isolated Symptoms for Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Children Tested During Peak Circulation of the Delta Variant.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing policies for symptomatic children attending US schools or daycare vary, and whether isolated symptoms should prompt testing is unclear. We evaluated children presenting for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing to determine if the likelihood of having a positive SARS-CoV-2 test differed between participants with 1 symptom vs ≥2 symptoms, and to examine the predictive capability of isolated symptoms. METHODS: Participants aged <18 years presenting for clinical SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing in 6 sites in urban/suburban/rural Georgia (July-October, 2021; Delta variant predominant) were queried about individual symptoms. Participants were classified into 3 groups: asymptomatic, 1 symptom only, or ≥2 symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 test results and clinical characteristics of the 3 groups were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) for isolated symptoms were calculated by fitting a saturated Poisson model. RESULTS: Of 602 participants, 21.8% tested positive and 48.7% had a known or suspected close contact. Children reporting 1 symptom (n = 82; odds ratio [OR], 6.00 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.70-13.33]) and children reporting ≥2 symptoms (n = 365; OR, 5.25 [95% CI, 2.66-10.38]) were significantly more likely to have a positive COVID-19 test than asymptomatic children (n = 155), but they were not significantly different from each other (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, .52-1.49]). Sensitivity and PPV were highest for isolated fever (33% and 57%, respectively), cough (25% and 32%), and sore throat (21% and 45%); headache had low sensitivity (8%) but higher PPV (33%). Sensitivity and PPV of isolated congestion/rhinorrhea were 8% and 9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With high Delta variant prevalence, children with isolated symptoms were as likely as those with multiple symptoms to test positive for COVID-19. Isolated fever, cough, sore throat, or headache, but not congestion/rhinorrhea, offered the highest predictive value.

Don't forget about human factors: Lessons learned from COVID-19 point-of-care testing.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the development of point-of-care (POC) diagnostic testing accelerated in an unparalleled fashion. As a result, there has been an increased need for accurate, robust, and easy-to-use POC testing in a variety of non-traditional settings (i.e., pharmacies, drive-thru sites, schools). While stakeholders often express the desire for POC technologies that are "as simple as digital pregnancy tests," there is little discussion of what this means in regards to device design, development, and assessment. The design of POC technologies and systems should take into account the capabilities and limitations of the users and their environments. Such "human factors" are important tenets that can help technology developers create POC technologies that are effective for end-users in a multitude of settings. Here, we review the core principles of human factors and discuss lessons learned during the evaluation process of SARS-CoV-2 POC testing.

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.

Multidisciplinary assessment of the Abbott BinaxNOW SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care antigen test in the context of emerging viral variants and self-administration.

While there has been significant progress in the development of rapid COVID-19 diagnostics, as the pandemic unfolds, new challenges have emerged, including whether these technologies can reliably detect the more infectious variants of concern and be viably deployed in non-clinical settings as "self-tests". Multidisciplinary evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW, a widely used rapid antigen test, included limit of detection, variant detection, test performance across different age-groups, and usability with self/caregiver-administration. While BinaxNOW detected the highly infectious variants, B.1.1.7 (Alpha) first identified in the UK, B.1.351 (Beta) first identified in South Africa, P.1 (Gamma) first identified in Brazil, B.1.617.2 (Delta) first identified in India and B.1.2, a non-VOC, test sensitivity decreased with decreasing viral loads. Moreover, BinaxNOW sensitivity trended lower when devices were performed by patients/caregivers themselves compared to trained clinical staff, despite universally high usability assessments following self/caregiver-administration among different age groups. Overall, these data indicate that while BinaxNOW accurately detects the new viral variants, as rapid COVID-19 tests enter the home, their already lower sensitivities compared to RT-PCR may decrease even more due to user error.