Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Microbiol Spectr ; 12(3): e0252523, 2024 Mar 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38349164

ABSTRACT

We conducted a single-center study at a free community testing site in Baltimore City to assess the accuracy of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. Self-administered BinaxNOW RATs were compared with clinician-performed RATs and against a reference lab molecular testing as the gold standard. Of the 953 participants, 14.9% were positive for SARS- CoV-2 as determined by RT-PCR. The sensitivity and specificity were similar for both self- and clinician-performed RATs (sensitivity: 83.9% vs 88.2%, P = 0.40; specificity: 99.8% vs 99.6%, P = 0.6). Subgroup comparisons based on age and race yielded similar results. Notably, 5.2% (95% CI: 1.5% to 9.5%) of positive results were potentially missed due to participant misinterpretation of the self-test card. However, the false-positive rate for RATs was reassuringly comparable in accuracy to clinician-administered tests. These findings hold significant implications for physicians prescribing treatment based on patient-reported, self-administered positive test results. Our study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, underscoring their comparable accuracy to clinician-performed RATs, and endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Further studies using other rapid antigen test brands are warranted.IMPORTANCEAccurate and accessible COVID-19 testing is crucial for effective disease control and management. A recent single-center study conducted in Baltimore City examined the reliability of self-performed rapid antigen tests (RATs) for COVID-19. The study found that self-administered RATs yielded similar sensitivity and specificity to clinician-performed tests, demonstrating their comparable accuracy. These findings hold significant implications for physicians relying on patient-reported positive test results for treatment decisions. The study provides robust evidence supporting the reliability and utility of patient-performed RATs, endorsing their continued use in managing COVID-19. Furthermore, the study highlights the need for further research using different rapid antigen test brands to enhance generalizability. Ensuring affordable and widespread access to self-tests is crucial, particularly in preparation for future respiratory virus seasons and potential waves of reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 variants such as the Omicron variant.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Disaster Med Public Health Prep ; : 1-15, 2023 Sep 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37702089

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment for COVID-19 has been underutilized due to logistical challenges, lack of access and variable treatment awareness among patients and healthcare professionals. The use of telehealth during the pandemic provides an opportunity to increase access to COVID-19 care. METHODS: This is a single-center descriptive study of telehealth-based patient self-referral for mAb therapy between March 1, 2021, to October 31, 2021 at Baltimore Convention Center Field Hospital (BCCFH). RESULTS: Among the 1001 self-referral patients, the mean age was 47, and most were female (57%) white (66%), and had a primary care provider (62%). During the study period, self-referrals increased from 14 per month in March to 427 in October resulting in a 30-fold increase. About 57% of self-referred patients received a telehealth visit, and of those 82% of patients received mAb infusion therapy. The median time from self-referral to onsite infusion was 2 days (1-3 IQR). DISCUSSION: Our study shows the integration of telehealth with a self-referral process improved access to mAb infusion. A high proportion of self-referrals were appropriate and led to timely treatment. This approach helped those without traditional avenues for care and avoided potential delay for patients seeking referral from their PCPs.

3.
Microbiol Spectr ; 10(4): e0023622, 2022 08 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35867409

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 continues to develop new, increasingly infectious variants including delta and omicron. We evaluated the efficacy of the Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test against Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in 1,054 pediatric participants presenting to a high-volume Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing site while the delta variant was predominant. Both tests utilized anterior nares swabs. Participants were grouped by COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. 5.2% of samples tested positive by RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. For all participants, sensitivity of the BinaxNOW was 92.7% (95% CI 82.4%-98.0%), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 97.0%-98.8%). For symptomatic participants, positive predictive value (PPV) was 72.7% (95% CI 54.5%-86.7%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.2% (95% CI 98.2%-100%). Among asymptomatic participants, PPV was 71.4% (95% CI 53.7%-85.4%) and NPV was 99.7% (95% CI 99.0%-100%). Our reported sensitivity and NPV are higher than other pediatric studies, potentially because of higher viral load from the delta variant, but specificity and PPV are lower. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of nearly 92% in both symptomatic and asymptomatic children when performed at a high-throughput setting during the more transmissible delta variant dominant period. The test may play an invaluable role in asymptomatic screening and keeping children safe in school.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Humans , Predictive Value of Tests , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity
5.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil ; 89(10): 1933-40, 2008 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18929021

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency, intensity, and impact of pain in persons with postpoliomyelitis syndrome (PPS). DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Community-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of people with PPS. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall intensity and duration of pain, pain sites, pain interference, pain treatments, and relief provided by pain treatments. RESULTS: A total of 91% (n=57) of the study participants (N=63) reported pain. The most frequently reported pain sites were the shoulders, lower back, legs, and hips. Participants reported pain intensity to be the greatest in the knees, legs, wrists, lower back, and head. Pain interfered most with sleep and with activities requiring a high level of musculoskeletal involvement. Respondents also reported pain problems that were more severe than those of the general population and than those of a sample of people with multiple sclerosis. Many treatments had been tried previously for pain, but continued use of treatments was reported by relatively few participants at the time of the survey. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that pain is a persistent and common problem in persons with PPS, highlighting the need for effective and accessible pain treatments for this population.


Subject(s)
Pain/epidemiology , Postpoliomyelitis Syndrome/complications , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , California/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain/rehabilitation , Pain Measurement , Postpoliomyelitis Syndrome/rehabilitation , Quality of Life , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Sickness Impact Profile , Washington/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...