Self-administered versus clinician-performed BinaxNOW COVID rapid test: a comparison of accuracy

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 gol...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Microbiology spectrum 2024-03, Vol.12 (3), p.e0252523-e0252523
Hauptverfasser: Vaeth, Mary Jane E, Cheema, Minahil, Omer, Sarah, Gupta, Ishaan, Sun, Kristie J, Mitchell, Asia, Elhabashy, Maryam, Foyez, Maisha, Cheema, Aamna, Javed, Binish, Purekal, Sophia, Rahat, Resham, Michtalik, Henry, Locke, Charles, Kantsiper, Melinda, Campbell, James D, Hammershaimb, E Adrianne, Manabe, Yukari C, Robinson, Matthew L, Johnson, J Kristie, Wilson, Lucy E, Callahan, Charles W, Siddiqui, Zishan K
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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%, = 0.40; specificity: 99.8% vs 99.6%, = 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.
ISSN:2165-0497
2165-0497
DOI:10.1128/spectrum.02525-23