Accuracy of 2 Rapid Antigen Tests During 3 Phases of SARS-CoV-2 Variants.

Importance: Variants of SARS-CoV-2 have sequence variations in the viral genome that may alter the accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests. Objective: To assess the analytical and clinical accuracy of 2 rapid diagnostic tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 during 3 phases of variants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study included participants aged 18 years or older who reported onset of COVID-19-like symptoms within the prior 5 days and were tested at multiple COVID-19 testing locations in King County, Washington, from February 17, 2021, to January 11, 2022, during 3 distinct phases of SARS-CoV-2 infection (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron). Interventions: Two anterior nasal swab specimens were collected from each participant-1 for onsite testing by the SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test and 1 for reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The analytical limit of detection of the 2 rapid diagnostic tests (SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test and BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card) was assessed using Omicron (B.1.1.529/BA.1), Delta (B.1.617.2), and a wild-type (USA-WA1/2020) variant. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of clinical testing for the rapid antigen tests were compared with that of RT-PCR testing. Results: A total of 802 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 37.3 [13.3] years; 467 [58.2%] female), 424 (52.9%) of whom had not received COVID-19 vaccination and presented a median of 2 days (IQR, 1-3 days) from symptom onset. Overall, no significant differences were found in the analytical limit of detection or clinical diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen testing across SARS-CoV-2 variants. The estimated limit of detection for both rapid nucleocapsid antigen tests was at or below a 50% tissue culture infectious dose of 62.5, and the positive percent agreement of the SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test ranged from 81.2% (95% CI, 69.5%-89.9%) to 90.7% (95% CI, 77.9%-97.4%) across the 3 phases of variants. The diagnostic sensitivity increased for nasal swabs with a lower cycle threshold by RT-PCR, which correlates with a higher viral load. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, analytical and clinical performance data demonstrated accuracy of 2 rapid antigen tests among adults with COVID-19 symptoms across 3 phases of SARS-CoV-2 variants. The findings suggest that home-based rapid antigen testing programs may be an important intervention to reduce global SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Elucidating Pathways Mediating the Relationship Between Male Sex and COVID-19 Severity.

PURPOSE: To examine associations between male sex and SARS-CoV-2 test positivity, severe COVID-19 disease, and death in a single-site cohort, and assess whether male sex impacts risk for severe COVID-19 disease through socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidities, or inflammation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with data collected from University of Washington Medicine EMR from March 1 to September 29, 2020. All persons, regardless of age, were included if they had a conclusive diagnostic COVID-19 PCR test result. Our exposure was sex assigned at birth. We used Poisson regression to assess associations between sex and COVID-19 test positivity, disease severity and COVID-19 related death, and linear regression to compare viral cycle threshold at the first positive test. We conducted mediation analyses to assess interventional indirect effects of male sex on severe COVID-19 risk through socioeconomic status (SES, based on area deprivation and insurance type), comorbidities, and inflammation status. Models controlled for age and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Of 32,919 males and 34,733 females included, 1469 (4.5%) and 1372 (4.0%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, respectively. Males were 14% more likely to test positive (RR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.06-1.23), had 80% higher risk for severe COVID-19 disease (RR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.39-2.33) and had 58% higher risk for death (RR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.10-2.26) compared to females after adjusting for age and race/ethnicity. Mediation analyses indicated non-significant interventional indirect effects of male sex on severe COVID-19 disease through elevated inflammatory markers, SES and comorbidities, but the greatest effect was through the inflammation pathway. CONCLUSION: Males appear to be at higher risk at all steps of the continuum of COVID-19 illness. The strongest mediating signal, albeit non-significant, is with inflammatory pathways. Further elucidation of causal pathways linking sex and COVID-19 severity is needed in larger cohorts.

Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective prevention against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is currently limited to nonpharmaceutical strategies. Laboratory and observational data suggested that hydroxychloroquine had biological activity against SARS-CoV-2, potentially permitting its use for prevention. OBJECTIVE: To test hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: Household-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine postexposure prophylaxis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04328961). SETTING: National U.S. multicenter study. PARTICIPANTS: Close contacts recently exposed (<96 hours) to persons with diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection. INTERVENTION: Hydroxychloroquine (400 mg/d for 3 days followed by 200 mg/d for 11 days) or ascorbic acid (500 mg/d followed by 250 mg/d) as a placebo-equivalent control. MEASUREMENTS: Participants self-collected mid-turbinate swabs daily (days 1 to 14) for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The primary outcome was PCR-confirmed incident SARS-CoV-2 infection among persons who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at enrollment. RESULTS: Between March and August 2020, 671 households were randomly assigned: 337 (407 participants) to the hydroxychloroquine group and 334 (422 participants) to the control group. Retention at day 14 was 91%, and 10 724 of 11 606 (92%) expected swabs were tested. Among the 689 (89%) participants who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline, there was no difference between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups in SARS-CoV-2 acquisition by day 14 (53 versus 45 events; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.66]; P > 0.20). The frequency of participants experiencing adverse events was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group than the control group (66 [16.2%] versus 46 [10.9%], respectively; P = 0.026). LIMITATION: The delay between exposure, and then baseline testing and the first dose of hydroxychloroquine or ascorbic acid, was a median of 2 days. CONCLUSION: This rigorous randomized controlled trial among persons with recent exposure excluded a clinically meaningful effect of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.