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.

Realizing the Value of Nursing Through Innovative Regulation.

Nursing regulation is a specialty area of nursing practice that some may perceive as only performing licensing and disciplinary functions. However, highly effective boards strive to meet their mission of public protection through continuous innovation. This article describes several innovative programs initiated by a board of nursing. Among the examples include regulatory waivers during the pandemic, collaborations with stakeholder organizations, a resource for nursing peer-review committees, and an alternative remediation option for practice breakdown. With strong leadership and committed teams, regulation can both protect the public and play a part in actualizing the value of nursing.

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.