Evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Test Ag Card for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by a local public health district with a rural population.

SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, the gold standard for diagnostic testing, may not be readily available or logistically applicable for routine COVID-19 testing in many rural communities in the United States. In this validation study, we compared the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in 214 participants who sought COVID-19 testing from a local public health district in Idaho, USA. The median age of participants was 35 and 82.7% were symptomatic. Thirty-seven participants (17.3%) had positive RT-PCR results. Results between the two tests were 94.4% concordant. The sensitivity of the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card was 67.6% (95% CI: 50.2-81.9%), and the specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 97.9-100.0%). The positive predictive value (PPV) for the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card was 100.0% (95% CI: 86.2-100.0%), and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 93.6% (95% CI: 89.1-96.6%). Although the sensitivity of BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card was lower than RT-PCR, rapid results and high specificity support its use for early detection of COVID-19, especially in settings where SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is not readily available. Rapid antigen tests, such as the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card, may be a more convenient tool in quickly identifying and preventing COVID-19 transmission, especially in rural settings.

Introduction

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is essential for slowing community transmission. Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays for COVID-19 diagnosis have excellent sensitivity and specificity but require laboratory instrumentation and sending specimens to a laboratory for testing can culminate in delayed turnaround times for results [1]. Rapid, point-of-care tests that quickly identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 are particularly useful in public health settings to limit the spread of infection [2]. The BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card (BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test) is a rapid antigen test in a card format that detects SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens present in a nasal swab specimen. This test received an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) on August 26, 2020 [3]. The BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test is a lateral flow immunoassay used at the point of care with results read visually after a 15-minute incubation period. Use of the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test has increased the availability of COVID-19 testing in Idaho, where laboratory-based COVID-19 testing remains limited for many geographically isolated, rural communities.

Additional data on the performance of the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test are needed to help providers interpret results and determine whether confirmatory testing should be recommended [4]. A prospective, observational study at a local public health district in Southwestern Idaho was conducted to evaluate the performance of BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test compared with the gold standard of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Demand for COVID-19 testing was evaluated over time, by monitoring testing rates throughout the region as well as within the Southwest District Health clinic.

Materials and methods

Through this evaluation, we determined the percent concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Examination of BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test performance characteristics employed a modified, more restrictive positive test interpretation criteria, where only bands that extended across the full width of the test strip were scored as positive, as recommended by Pilarowski and colleagues [5].

Study site and participant enrollment

This study was conducted by Southwest District Health, one of Idaho’s seven public health districts, that serves six counties with a total estimated population of 283,930 residents. All counties in Southwest District Health are at least partially classified as rural by the Health Resources & Services Administration’s Federal Office of Rural Health Policy [6]. Subjects were identified among clients who scheduled an appointment for COVID-19 testing with Southwest District Health Employee Health/Clinic Services in Caldwell, Idaho, or through any mobile testing locations facilitated by Southwest District Health between November 2020 and May 2021. Prior to enrollment and performance of any study-specific procedure, a signed informed consent form was obtained for each participant. Interpreter services were offered when a language barrier was present. For minors, written consent from a parent or guardian was required for enrollment, as well as verbal assent from the minor. Eligible participants were those who sought COVID-19 testing from the Southwest District Health Clinic, were able to provide informed consent, and had not been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the 90 days prior to specimen collection. All participants were screened using a standardized questionnaire to collect demographic data and to identify symptom, exposure, and immunization status. Demographic data including age, gender, race, ethnicity, and contact information were collected and participants were asked about their symptoms and previous vaccinations, recent travel, and whether they had been exposed to a person diagnosed with COVID-19 in the previous 14 days.

Specimen collection and testing procedures

COVID-19 testing using the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test was conducted according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A nasal swab was collected by inserting the swab into the nostril until resistance is met at the level of the turbinate, rotating five times against the nasal wall, and repeating in the other nostril using the same swab [7]. Results were visually read promptly 15 minutes after the test card was closed. A second specimen was collected from each participant for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, using the same swab collection procedure. Second specimens were immediately placed in 3 mL virus stabilization tubes containing viral transport media and stored between 2°C −8°C until transported to the Idaho Bureau of Laboratories (IBL) for RT-PCR testing using the TaqPathTM COVID-19 Combo Kit (ThermoFisher Scientific A47814). Results were determined by the automated ThermoFisher Interpretive SoftwareTM and confirmed by IBL staff. Results were available in 1–3 days of specimen collection. A subset of positive specimens was sequenced with the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) MinION Mk1c using the ONT protocol “PCR tiling of SARS-CoV-2 virus with rapid barcoding (SQK-RBK110.96) Version: PCTR_9125_v110_revD_24Mar2021” developed by Freed and Silander [8]. Assemblies were performed using CLC Genomics version 21.0.4 long read support module and lineage calls made by the Pangolin COVID-19 Lineage Assigner version 3.1.5 [9]. The resulting consensus sequences were uploaded to GISAID [10].

Data governance and analysis

A unique study identification number was assigned to each participant in the order of enrollment. Paper screening forms were archived and stored in a locked filing cabinet, while results from RT-PCR testing were reported using an electronic portal and added to the study database. The study database is stored securely on Southwest District Health servers, with access restricted to study personnel. Data analysis was conducted using Excel for data storage, with R 4.0.3 software used for statistical analysis.

Sample size calculations were based on the primary outcome, percent concordance of BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results, using precision-based calculations. For an estimated concordance of 90%, a sample size of 200 participants would produce a two-sided 95% confidence interval of width ± 4.2%. Secondary outcomes include determining the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test, which are reported as percentages with two sided 95% confidence intervals using an alpha of 0.05.

COVID-19 testing demand was monitored throughout the study enrollment window by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare. Data are based on electronic laboratory reports (ELRs) received from laboratories that report both positive and negative results. Data are also based on the date the specimen was collected, not the date the lab result was received. Records were extracted weekly and shared with Idaho’s Public Health Departments.

Ethics and confidentiality

This project was reviewed by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Public Health Research Determination Committee and was deemed public health surveillance activity. The project was determined as non-research and exempt from ethical review by the Institutional Review Board.

Participant confidentiality is strictly held in trust by the participating investigators, staff, and institutions. All research staff received training in Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and privacy and confidentiality as part of their routine duties. Participant information was stored securely, de-identified, and used for analysis as described above. Documents that identify the participant (e.g., the signed informed consent) were maintained in a locked file cabinet at Southwest District Health with access limited to the principal investigator.

Results

Between November 2020 and May 2021, 214 eligible participants were enrolled in the study and paired nasopharyngeal samples were collected and tested. The majority (66.4%, n = 142) were female. Participant ages ranged from 5 to 95 years of age, with a median (IQR) of 35 (19–55) years; 22.4% (n = 48) of participants were under the age of 18. Samples were collected from participants of varying races and ethnicities, most of whom were white (65.9%, n = 141). Nearly one-third of participants (28.9%, n = 62) did not disclose race or ethnicity. Additional demographics data can be found in the S1 Table.

Of the 214 participants, 17.3% (n = 37) had positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR detection and 11.6% (n = 25) had positive results with the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test. The concordance between the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, was 94.4% (n = 202). The BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test demonstrated a sensitivity of 67.6% (95% CI: 50.2–81.9%), and specificity of 100.0% (95% CI: 97.9–100.0%). Compared to RT-PCR, the positive predictive value (PPV) for the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test was 100.0% (95% CI: 86.2–100.0%), and the negative predictive value (NPV) was determined to be 93.6% (95% CI: 89.1–96.6%).

Of the 214 participants, 82.7% (n = 177) reported symptoms at the time of sample collection. The median (IQR) days since symptom onset was 2 (1–3) days prior to sample collection. The most frequently reported symptoms were congestion/runny nose (n = 123), headache (n = 121), fatigue (n = 116), sore throat (n = 116), and cough (n = 116). Only 25.2% (n = 54) of participants reported a fever as one of their symptoms. The prevalence of COVID-19 among all study participants was 17.3%, which was lower than among symptomatic participants (22.9%) but higher than among asymptomatic participants (12.1%).

Of the 214 paired samples, 5.6% (n = 12) had discordant results. All discordant results were due to a false negative from the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test. A total of 83.3% (n = 10) of participants with discordant results reported symptoms at the time of sample collection. The median (IQR) days between symptom onset and sample collection for symptomatic participants with discordant results were 2.5 (1–4) days (n = 10), with a greater variability in days since symptom onset compared with symptomatic participants with concordant results with a median (IQR) of 2 (1–3) days (n = 167) since symptom onset (Fig 1). There was no significant difference in days since symptom onset when comparing concordant and discordant results (p = 0.439) using the student’s t-test (Table 1).

Fig 1

Days between symptom onset and sample collections for participants with concordant and discordant results.

Table 1

Comparison of days since symptom onset for concordant and discordant results using the student’s t-test.

	Days Since Symptom Onset
Results	n	Median	IQR	t	df	p-value
Concordant	167	2	(1–3)
Discordant	10	2.5	(1–4)	-0.775	174	0.439

A minority of participants were asymptomatic at the time of sample collection (17.3%, n = 37). Of the asymptomatic participants, 37.8% (n = 14) reported a known exposure to someone who had tested positive for COVID-19 within the last 14 days and 10.8% (n = 4) were determined by RT-PCR to be positive for COVID-19. The BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test demonstrated a sensitivity of 50.0% (95% CI: 6.8–93.2%), and specificity of 100.0% (95% CI: 89.4–100.0%) for asymptomatic participants.

A total of 14.5% of participants received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccination, and 12.1% of participants were fully immunized. Of those who were fully immunized, 70.3% (n = 19) showed no symptoms. One fully immunized participant (3.7%, n = 1), who did not report any symptoms at time of sample collection, tested positive for COVID-19 through RT-PCR with concordant BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test results.

The Idaho Bureau of Laboratories sequenced 33 of the 37 positive samples (Table 2). Of the 33 samples successfully sequenced, 25 produced unambiguous lineage calls and 8 produced sequences with some ambiguity as assigned by PangoLEARN [9]. During the enrollment period, the most prevalent SARS-CoV-2 variants were Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), and Epsilon (B.1.427 & B.1.429).

Table 2

SARS-CoV-2 lineage calls shown by concordance between BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test and RT-PCR.

Lineage	Discordant	Concordant	Total
B.1	1	1	2
B.1.1.7 (Alpha, VOC1)	3	0	3
B.1.1.416	0	1	1
B.1.2	5	13	18
B.1.170	1	0	1
B.1.234	0	1	1
B.1.400	0	1	1
B.1.427 (Epsilon, VOI2)	0	1	1
B.1.429 (Epsilon, VOI)	0	2	2
B.1.544	1	0	1
B.1.561	0	1	1
B.1.596	0	1	1
Total Variants Identified	11	22	33

1Variant of Concern (VOC) is classified by the CDC as a variant for which there is evidence of increased transmissibility, more severe disease, significant reduction in neutralization by antibodies generated during previous infection or vaccination, reduced effectiveness of treatments or vaccines, or diagnostic detection failures [11].

2Variant of Interest (VOI) is classified by the CDC as a variant with specific genetic markers that have been associated with changes to receptor binding, reduced neutralization by antibodies generated against previous infection or vaccination, reduced efficacy of treatments, potential diagnostic impact, or predicted increase in transmissibility or disease severity [11].

Of the 37 RT-PCR positive specimens collected, the cycle threshold (Ct) values ranged from 16 to 38, with a median value of 28 (Table 3). The median Ct value for samples with concordant results was 24, compared to a median Ct value of 36 for discordant samples (p<0.001) (Table 4). For samples with a Ct value less than 35, the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card demonstrated a sensitivity of 85.7% (95% CI: 67.3–95.9%).

Table 3

Cycle threshold (Ct) values shown by concordance between BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test and RT-PCR.

Ct value	Concordant	Discordant	Total
<30	20	2	22
31–35	4	3	7
>35	1	7	8

Table 4

Comparison of cycle threshold (Ct) values for concordant and discordant results using the Welch’s t-test for unequal variance.

	Cycle threshold (Ct) values
Results	n	Median	IQR	t	df	p-value
Concordant	25	24.0	(20–29.5)
Discordant	12	36.0	(32.75–38)	-5.38	27.96	<0.001

Throughout the enrollment period, Southwest District Health clinic saw a median (IQR) RT-PCR turnaround time of 1 (0–2) days. During the same time period, the region as a whole saw a median wait time of approximately 2 (1–4) days for RT-PCR results to reach the patient. The discrepancy in turnaround time is likely due to the Southwest Health District Clinic having immediate access to Electronic Lab Reports (ELRs) while many private clinics throughout the region relied on private web based patient portals or mailed RT-PCR results to inform patients of their results.

Participant enrollment varied during the study period (Fig 2). Study enrollment paused between February 6, 2021 and March 25, 2021 (MMWR week 6–12) due to leadership staff turnover, new training and implementation, as well as prioritization of vaccination efforts. During the study period, the demand for COVID-19 testing across the health district declined over time.

Fig 2

COVID-19 testing demand in SWDH (per 1,000 residents) and newly enrolled study participants by week, Jan-May 2021.

Discussion

The BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test was evaluated in people seeking free testing conducted by a local public health district in Idaho serving a rural population. Results were compared to the gold standard of SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR. The prevalence of COVID-19 among all study participants was 17.3%, indicative of high levels of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the study time frame. Overall, results were highly concordant (94.4%) and no false positives were identified. Sensitivity of the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test was 67.6% overall, and lower for asymptomatic participants. Results from our study were consistent with larger studies assessing the performance of the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test. A study conducted by in Pima County, Arizona in November of 2020 found similar results, with a 64.2% sensitivity for symptomatic participants, 35.8% sensitivity for asymptomatic participants, and a 100% specificity for all participants regardless of symptom status [12]. Another study evaluating drive-through COVID-19 testing in Massachusetts demonstrated the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test to have a similar specificity of 100% for symptomatic adults and 99.6% for asymptomatic adults. However, a higher sensitivity for symptomatic adults (96.5%), compared to asymptomatic adults (70.2%) was observed. The Massachusetts study also demonstrated that sensitivity was significantly lower when BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Tests were conducted at temperatures below the manufacturer’s recommended range [13]. Although BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Tests were conducted indoors for our study, samples were collected in an outdoor drive through tent; the indoor testing area was close to a doorway leading to the outdoor testing site, and temperatures, from sample collection to test results, were not monitored.

One objective of our study was to inform recommendations on whether confirmatory testing by RT-PCR is needed following rapid antigen testing with the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test. The lack of false positives observed in this study, along with specificity above 99% reported from other studies, indicate that positive results by BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test may not require confirmation by RT-PCR. However, lower sensitivity and the possibility of a false negative result strongly supports that confirmatory testing should be recommended in some circumstances, especially when the results of the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test is inconsistent with the clinical context (e.g. among symptomatic individuals or those with a known exposure to someone with COVID-19), as per current CDC recommendations [14].

The main benefits of rapid antigen testing are its accessibility, and that it can be conducted outside of a laboratory setting with rapid availability of results at the point of care. In our study, the median turnaround time for RT-PCR results was approximately 24 hours, though early in the pandemic, rural areas of Idaho experienced significant turnaround times for RT-PCR results, with most results taking more than a week [15]. The BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test might be particularly useful in rural settings without local RT-PCR capacity.

Among symptomatic participants with false negatives from the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test, we saw a greater variability in days since symptom onset (see Fig 1), however differences in days since symptom onset did not differ between discordant and concordant samples, likely due to a small number of symptomatic participants with discordant results (n = 10). Because viral loads are generally higher at symptom onset and decline over time, the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test might be less able to detect SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with specimen collection several days after symptom onset. Additionally, the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test was less sensitive among asymptomatic participants, whereas viral loads have been shown to be comparable between symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 patients [16]. In this study, 62.1% of asymptomatic participants did not report a known exposure in the 14 days prior to sample collection. Since asymptomatic participants without a known exposure to COVID-19 are unable to define a timeline of their exposure, we can assume there is greater variability in the days since exposure, and consequently, will have a greater variability in SARS-CoV-2 viral load [17]. Generally, rapid antigen tests perform better when viral loads are high, which is also when people with SARS-CoV-2 are more likely to be infectious.

Demand for COVID-19 testing declined rapidly during our enrollment period. There was a decline in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing demand throughout Idaho as well as a decline in new participants. We can attribute this to a decline in COVID-19 prevalence throughout the region and an increase in COVID-19 immunization during this time.

There were several limitations to this study, including small sample size, which may have affected analysis of the performance of the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test, compared to RT-PCR. Participants were identified among people seeking testing from the local public health district and they may not be representative of the community as a whole. An additional limitation may have been the temperature variability of the testing location, which may have affected performance of the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test, though the primary methodology of COVID-19 testing (rapid antigen and RT-PCR) in the United States mirrors this process, with samples being collected from patients outdoors or within their personal vehicle and this study may inform these practices.

Rapid antigen testing, including the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test, is an important tool in detecting SARS-CoV-2, particularly in rural areas with limited access to high level laboratories that are capable of conducting SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. While the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test is less sensitive than SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, it is highly specific, and can be used as a tool to rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 in community settings. Community testing programs run by local health departments using rapid antigen tests can improve access to COVID-19 testing and to help limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2. As additional waves of novel coronavirus variants emerge, rapid antigen testing may continue to serve as a valuable alternative testing modality to RT-PCR tests.

Characteristics of study participants and SARS-CoV-2 detection method and result.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

17 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-27586Evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by a local public health district with a rural populationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pollreis,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 1st October 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shinya Tsuzuki, MD, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

All reviewers evaluated that the manuscript was appropriate for publication and I agree with their opinion. A few comments should be addressed still remained then please respond them.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have no comments on the submitted manuscript "Evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by a local public health district with a rural population"

Reviewer #2: The study describes the performance of the BinaxNOW Ag Card for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus antigen in clinical samples. The manuscript is well-structured and readily understandable, and the authors conclusions that are drawn from the presented data are plausible. The results are discussed from several perspectives and integrated into current knowledge about the BinaxNow test performance. However, discussing the BinaxNOW test performance with that of other rapid test products would add further value to the manuscript.

In ll270ff the authors state that, due to the high specifity of the BinaxNOW test, positive test results may require confirmation by RT-PCR. I do not understand why, please explain. A positive result of a high specificity test should be ok?

Other points:

� Due to the diverse test princriples in point of care testing, the precise format (lateral flow assay?) would be helpful

� Beginning with citation #10, the numbering is flawed. Please correct

� Tables 2+3: is somewhat misleading, you could consider to choose another term (e.g. or just )

� Is the information in Table 3 relevant for the interpretation or discussion of study results?

� Tables 4+5: in the text 25 concordant samples are described, in Tables 4+5 only 24 samples are listed

Reviewer #3: This is a very well written paper. I fully appreciate that authors fully document the limitations of both the study and the rapid test. These limitations in no way affect the importance to public health in the presentation of these data to the public.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

26 Oct 2021

Please see the Response to Reviewers document for additional information. Thank you for your consideration of our revised manuscript.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Nov 2021

Evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by a local public health district with a rural population

PONE-D-21-27586R1

Dear Dr. Pollreis,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Shinya Tsuzuki, MD, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: In the revised version of the manuscript the data still is presented very clearly and discussed in a balanced way. All reviewer comments were answered and/or worked into the manuscript. However, table numbering needs to be checked (tables 4 and 5 are now tables 3 and 4 ?)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

22 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-27586R1

Evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Test Ag Card for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by a local public health district with a rural population

Dear Dr. Pollreis:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Shinya Tsuzuki

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE