Alyssa M Indelicato1, Zacharia H Mohamed1, Mantosh J Dewan1, Christopher P Morley2. 1. SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY. 2. Department of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, and Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences | State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.
Abstract
Introduction: Operating in-person instruction, residential living, and other activities at institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the context of the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) have posed a multitude of challenges. Identification of asymptomatic cases at IHEs is crucial, as a large reservoir of virus can potentially develop among students. Unfortunately, despite the advantages, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have variously been shown to perform poorly when used with asymptomatic individuals. Methods: In order to address the appropriateness of RAT use in screening asymptomatic populations like those at IHEs, we conducted a rapid review of published evaluations of RATs available in the United States, where sensitivity and specificity were reported specifically from asymptomatic populations. We extracted sensitivity and specificity for asymptomatic populations reported in each article, along with location and important notes. The data are presented narratively. Results: A total of 11 articles were included for evaluation and presentation, representing tests from four manufacturers. Sensitivity ranged from 35.8% to a high of about 71%, with caveats to the higher number about exposure. Both the low and high sensitivity rates were observed in Abbott BinaxNOW RATs. Due to heterogeneity and publishing differences, a meta-analysis was not feasible, but RAT tests in asymptomatic populations tended to identify roughly half of those identified as infected via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Specificity ranged from 97.8% to 100%. Conclusion: The results of this rapid review indicate serious issues in misidentifying asymptomatic individuals as COVID-19 negative, when in fact they are infected and carrying the SARS-Cov2 virus.
Introduction: Operating in-person instruction, residential living, and other activities at institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the context of the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) have posed a multitude of challenges. Identification of asymptomatic cases at IHEs is crucial, as a large reservoir of virus can potentially develop among students. Unfortunately, despite the advantages, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have variously been shown to perform poorly when used with asymptomatic individuals. Methods: In order to address the appropriateness of RAT use in screening asymptomatic populations like those at IHEs, we conducted a rapid review of published evaluations of RATs available in the United States, where sensitivity and specificity were reported specifically from asymptomatic populations. We extracted sensitivity and specificity for asymptomatic populations reported in each article, along with location and important notes. The data are presented narratively. Results: A total of 11 articles were included for evaluation and presentation, representing tests from four manufacturers. Sensitivity ranged from 35.8% to a high of about 71%, with caveats to the higher number about exposure. Both the low and high sensitivity rates were observed in Abbott BinaxNOW RATs. Due to heterogeneity and publishing differences, a meta-analysis was not feasible, but RAT tests in asymptomatic populations tended to identify roughly half of those identified as infected via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Specificity ranged from 97.8% to 100%. Conclusion: The results of this rapid review indicate serious issues in misidentifying asymptomatic individuals as COVID-19 negative, when in fact they are infected and carrying the SARS-Cov2 virus.
Authors: Ian W Pray; Laura Ford; Devlin Cole; Christine Lee; John Paul Bigouette; Glen R Abedi; Dena Bushman; Miranda J Delahoy; Dustin Currie; Blake Cherney; Marie Kirby; Geroncio Fajardo; Motria Caudill; Kimberly Langolf; Juliana Kahrs; Patrick Kelly; Collin Pitts; Ailam Lim; Nicole Aulik; Azaibi Tamin; Jennifer L Harcourt; Krista Queen; Jing Zhang; Brett Whitaker; Hannah Browne; Magdalena Medrzycki; Patricia Shewmaker; Jennifer Folster; Bettina Bankamp; Michael D Bowen; Natalie J Thornburg; Kimberly Goffard; Brandi Limbago; Allen Bateman; Jacqueline E Tate; Douglas Gieryn; Hannah L Kirking; Ryan Westergaard; Marie Killerby Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 35.301
Authors: Genay Pilarowski; Paul Lebel; Sara Sunshine; Jamin Liu; Emily Crawford; Carina Marquez; Luis Rubio; Gabriel Chamie; Jackie Martinez; James Peng; Douglas Black; Wesley Wu; John Pak; Matthew T Laurie; Diane Jones; Steve Miller; Jon Jacobo; Susana Rojas; Susy Rojas; Robert Nakamura; Valerie Tulier-Laiwa; Maya Petersen; Diane V Havlir; Joseph DeRisi Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: David T Harris; Michael Badowski; Brandon Jernigan; Ryan Sprissler; Taylor Edwards; Randall Cohen; Stephen Paul; Nirav Merchant; Craig C Weinkauf; Christian Bime; Heidi E Erickson; Billie Bixby; Sairam Parthasarathy; Sachin Chaudhary; Bhupinder Natt; Elaine Cristan; Tammer El Aini; Franz Rischard; Janet Campion; Madhav Chopra; Michael Insel; Afshin Sam; James L Knepler; Kenneth Knox; Jarrod Mosier; Catherine Spier; Michael D Dake Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2021-05-12
Authors: Nira R Pollock; Kristine Tran; Jesica R Jacobs; Amber E Cranston; Sita Smith; Claire Y O'Kane; Tyler J Roady; Anne Moran; Alison Scarry; Melissa Carroll; Leila Volinsky; Gloria Perez; Pinal Patel; Stacey Gabriel; Niall J Lennon; Lawrence C Madoff; Catherine Brown; Sandra C Smole Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 3.835