Background: There is a need to understand the performance of rapid antigen tests (Ag-RDT) for detection of the Delta (B.1.61.7; AY.X) and Omicron (B.1.1.529; BA1) SARS-CoV-2 variants. Methods: Participants without any symptoms were enrolled from October 18, 2021 to January 24, 2022 and performed Ag-RDT and RT-PCR tests every 48 hours for 15 days. This study represents a non-pre-specified analysis in which we sought to determine if sensitivity of Ag-RDT differed in participants with Delta compared to Omicron variant. Participants who were positive on RT-PCR on the first day of the testing period were excluded. Delta and Omicron variants were defined based on sequencing and date of first RT-PCR positive result (RT-PCR+). Comparison of Ag-RDT performance between the variants was based on proportion of participants with Ag-RDT+ results in relation to their first RT-PCR+ result. Subsample analysis was performed based on the result of participants′ second RT-PCR test within 48 hours of the first RT-PCR+ test. Results: From the 7,349 participants enrolled in the parent study, 5,506 met the eligibility criteria for this study. A total of 153 participants were RT-PCR+ (61 Delta, 92 Omicron); among this group, 36 (23.5%) tested Ag-RDT+ on the same day and 36 (23.5%) tested Ag-RDT+ within 48 hours as first RT-PCR+. The differences between variants were not statistically significant (same-day: Delta 16.4% [95% CI: 8.2-28.1] vs Omicron 28.2% [95% CI: 19.4-38.6; 48-hours: Delta 45.9% [33.1-59.2] vs. Omicron 60.9% [50.1-70.9]). This trend continued among the 86 participants who had consecutive RT-PCR+ result (Delta: 79.3% [60.3-92.1] vs. Omicron: 89.5% [78.5-96.0]). Conversely, the 38 participants who had an isolated positive RT-PCR remained consistently negative on Ag-RDT, regardless of the variant. Conclusions: The performance of Ag-RDT is not inferior among Omicron variant in comparison to the Delta variant. The improvement in sensitivity of Ag-RDT with serial testing is consistent between Delta and Omicron variant. Performance of Ag-RDT varies based on duration of RT-PCR+ results and more studies are needed to understand the clinical and public health significance of individuals who are RT-PCR+ for less than 48 hours.
Use of rapid tests for diagnosis of COVID-19 is now commonplace, but questions remain regarding their performance characteristics compared with those of polymerase chain reaction testing. The role of sequential rapid testing in improving sensitivity is of great interest.
Background: Performance of Rapid Antigen Tests for SARS-CoV-2 (Ag-RDT) varies over the course of an infection, and their performance is not well established among asymptomatic individuals. Objective: Evaluate performance of Ag-RDT for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in relation to onset of infection for symptomatic and asymptomatic participants. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study conducted from October 2021 to February 2022 among participants > 2 years-old from across the US who enrolled using a smartphone app. During each testing encounter, participants self-collected one nasal swab and performed Ag-RDT at home; at-least fifteen minutes later, a second nasal swab was self-collected and shipped for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR at a central lab. Both nasal swabs were collected 7 times at 48-hour intervals (over approximately 14 days) followed by an extra nasal swab collection with home Ag-RDT test 48-hours after their last PCR sample. Each participant was assigned to one of the three emergency use authorized (EUA) Ag-RDT tests used in this study. This analysis was limited to participants who were asymptomatic and tested negative by antigen and molecular test on their first day of study participation. Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 positivity was determined by testing a single home-collected anterior nasal sample with three FDA EUA molecular tests, where 2 out 3 positive test results were needed to determine a SARS-CoV-2 positive result. Onset of infection was defined as day on which the molecular PCR comparator result was positive for the first time. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity of Ag-RDT was measured based on testing once (same-day), twice (at 48-hours) and thrice (at 96 hours). Analysis was repeated for different Days Post Index PCR Positivity (DPIPP) and stratified based on symptom-status on a given DPIPP. Results: A total of 7,361 participants enrolled in the study and 5,609 were eligible for this analysis. Among 154 eligible participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on RT-PCR, 97 were asymptomatic and 57 had symptoms at onset of infection (DPIPP 0). Serial testing with Ag-RDT twice over 48-hours resulted in an aggregated sensitivity of 93.4% (95% CI: 89.1-96.1%) among symptomatic participants on DPIPP 0-6. Among the 97 people who were asymptomatic at the onset of infection, 19 were singleton RT-PCR positive, i.e., their positive test was preceded and followed by a negative RT-PCR test within 48-hours. Excluding these singleton positives, aggregated sensitivity on DPIPP 0-6 for two-time serial-testing among asymptomatic participants was lower 62.7% (54.7-70.0%) but improved to 79.0% (71.0-85.3%) with serial testing three times at 48-hour interval. Discussion: Performance of Ag-RDT within first week of infection was optimized when asymptomatic participants tested three-times at 48-hour intervals and when symptomatic participants tested two-times separated by 48-hours.
Background: Over-the-counter rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 with an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States generally include a condition of authorization to evaluate the test's performance in asymptomatic individuals when used serially. A goal of this study was to investigate the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen serial testing and generate data to support regulatory decisions. Objective: To describe a novel study design to evaluate serial use of rapid antigen tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus among asymptomatic individuals. Design: Prospective cohort study using a decentralized approach. Eligible participants from across the U.S. could enroll and complete this study from their home environment through a study app. Participant enrollment was prioritized based on regional 7-day case rates, participants' vaccination status, and sociodemographic characteristics prior to enrollment. Prioritization criteria were adjusted on a daily or weekly basis. Enrolled participants were mailed rapid antigen tests and molecular comparator collection kits and asked to test every 48 hours for 15 days. Three companies' rapid antigen tests were used in the study; assignment of participant to a test was criteria-based and non-random, precluding head-to-head comparison between the tests. Participants: Mainland United States residents over 2 years old with no reported COVID-19 symptoms in the 14 days prior to study enrollment. Main Measures: Participant demographics, COVID-19 vaccination status, and geographic distribution were used to understand the impact of the site-less recruitment and enrollment strategy. Key Results: A total of 7,361 participants enrolled in the study between October 18, 2021 and February 15, 2022. Throughout the study, 369 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including 167 who were asymptomatic and tested negative on SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays to start the study. This exceeded the initial enrollment goals of 60 positive participants. We enrolled participants from 44 of the 48 mainland U.S. states, and geographic distribution of participants shifted in accordance with the changing COVID-19 prevalence nationwide. Conclusions: The novel, digital site-less approach employed in the 'Test Us At Home' study enabled rapid, efficient, and rigorous evaluation of rapid diagnostics for COVID-19, and can be adapted across research disciplines to optimize study enrollment and accessibility.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.