Search

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests are an important public health tool.ObjectiveTo evaluate field performance of the BinaxNOW rapid antigen test (Abbott) compared with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detecting infection with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.DesignCross-sectional surveillance study.SettingFree, walk-up, outdoor, urban community testing and vaccine site led by Unidos en Salud, serving a predominantly Latinx community highly impacted by COVID-19.ParticipantsPersons seeking COVID-19 testing in January 2022.MeasurementsSimultaneous BinaxNOW and RT-PCR from nasal, cheek, and throat swabs, including cycle threshold (Ct) measures; a lower Ct value is a surrogate for higher amounts of virus.ResultsAmong 731 persons tested with nasal swabs, there were 296 (40.5%) positive results on RT-PCR; 98.9% were the Omicron variant. BinaxNOW detected 95.2% (95% CI, 91% to 98%) of persons who tested positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 30, 82.1% (CI, 77% to 87%) of those who tested positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 35, and 65.2% (CI, 60% to 71%) of all who were positive on RT-PCR. Among 75 persons with simultaneous nasal and cheek swabs, BinaxNOW using a cheek swab failed to detect 91% (20 of 22) of specimens that were positive on BinaxNOW with a nasal swab. Among persons with simultaneous nasal and throat swabs who were positive on RT-PCR with a Ct value below 30, 42 of 49 (85.7%) were detected by nasal BinaxNOW, 23 of 49 (46.9%) by throat BinaxNOW, and 44 of 49 (89.8%) by either.LimitationParticipants were a cross-sectional sample from a community-based sentinel surveillance site, precluding study of viral or symptom dynamics.ConclusionBinaxNOW detected persons with high SARS-CoV-2 levels during the Omicron surge, enabling rapid responses to positive test results. Cheek or throat swabs should not replace nasal swabs. As currently recommended, high-risk persons with an initial negative BinaxNOW result should have repeated testing.Primary funding sourceUniversity of California, San Francisco.

ImportanceCharacterizing clinical symptoms and evolution of community-based SARS Co-V-2 infections can inform health practitioners and public health officials in a rapidly changing landscape of population immunity and viral variants.ObjectiveTo characterize COVID-19 symptoms during the Omicron period compared to pre-Delta and Delta variant periods and assess the duration of COVID-19 BinaxNOW rapid antigen test positivity during the Omicron variant surge.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis public health surveillance study was undertaken between January 2021-January 2022, at a walk-up community COVID-19 testing site in San Francisco, California. Testing with BinaxNOW rapid antigen tests was available regardless of age, vaccine status, or symptoms throughout.Main Outcomes and MeasuresWe characterized the prevalence of specific symptoms for people with a positive BinaxNOW test during the Omicron period and compared it to the pre-Delta and Delta periods. During the Omicron period, we examined differences in symptoms by age and vaccine status. Among people returning for repeat testing during Omicron period, we estimated the proportion with a positive BinaxNOW antigen test between 4-14 days from symptom onset or since first positive test if asymptomatic.ResultsOf 63,277 persons tested, 18,301 (30%) reported symptoms and 4,568 (25%) tested positive for COVID-19. During the Omicron period, 41.6% (3032/7283) of symptomatic testers tested positive, and the proportion reporting cough (67.4%) and sore throat (43.4%) was higher than during Delta and pre-Delta periods. Congestion was higher during Omicron (38.8%) than during the pre-Delta period and loss of taste/smell (5.3%) and fever (30.4%) were less common. Fevers and myalgias were less common among persons who had received boosters compared to unvaccinated people or those who received the primary series. Five days after symptom onset, 31.1% of people with COVID-19 stated their symptoms were similar or worsening. An estimated 80.2% of symptomatic re-testers remained positive five days after symptom onset and 60.5% after ten days.Conclusions and RelevanceCOVID-19 upper respiratory tract symptoms were more commonly reported during the Omicron period compared to pre-Delta and Delta periods, with differences by vaccination status. Antigen test positivity remained high after 5 days, supporting guidelines requiring a negative test to shorten the isolation period.Key pointsQuestionDuring the Omicron period, are there differences in COVID-19 symptomatology compared to the pre-Delta and Delta periods and how long do rapid antigen tests remain positive?FindingsIn this community-based surveillance study we detected differences in symptomatology between the Omicron period and prior variant-periods, and by age and vaccination status. Five days after symptom onset, 80% remained positive with a BinaxNOW test.MeaningDuring the Omicron period, differences in symptomatology may be due to rising population immunity and a new variant. BinaxNOW positivity remained high among re-testers, which supports guidelines that use rapid tests to shorten the isolation period.

ImportanceCharacterizing the clinical symptoms and evolution of community-based SARS-CoV-2 infections may inform health practitioners and public health officials in a rapidly changing landscape of population immunity and viral variants.ObjectivesTo compare COVID-19 symptoms among people testing positive with a rapid antigen test (RAT) during the Omicron BA.1 variant period (December 1, 2021, to January 30, 2022) with the pre-Delta (January 10 to May 31, 2021) and Delta (June 1 to November 30, 2021) variant periods and to assess the duration of RAT positivity during the Omicron BA.1 surge.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from January 10, 2021, to January 31, 2022, at a walk-up community COVID-19 testing site in San Francisco, California. Participants included children and adults seeking COVID-19 testing with an RAT, regardless of age, vaccine status, or symptoms.Main Outcomes and MeasuresFisher exact tests or χ2 tests were used to compare COVID-19 symptoms during the Omicron BA.1 period with the pre-Delta and Delta periods for vaccination status and age group. Among people returning for repeated testing during the Omicron period, the proportion with a positive RAT between 4 and 14 days from symptom onset or since first positive test if asymptomatic was estimated.ResultsAmong 63 277 persons tested (median [IQR] age, 32 [21-44] years, with 12.0% younger than 12 years; 52.0% women; and 68.5% Latinx), a total of 18 301 people (28.9%) reported symptoms, of whom 4565 (24.9%) tested positive for COVID-19. During the Omicron BA.1 period, 3032 of 7283 symptomatic participants (41.6%) tested positive, and the numbers of these reporting cough and sore throat were higher than during pre-Delta and Delta periods (cough: 2044 [67.4%] vs 546 [51.3%] of 1065 participants, P P = .002, for Delta; sore throat: 1316 [43.4%] vs 315 [29.6%] of 1065 participants, P P P P P = .01) were less common. In addition, during the Omicron BA.1 period, fever was less common among the people with positive test results who had received a vaccine booster compared with those with positive test results who were unvaccinated (97 [22.5%] of 432 vs 42 [36.2%] of 116 participants, P = .003), and fever and myalgia were less common among participants who had received a booster compared with those with positive results who had received only a primary series (fever: 97 [22.5%] of 432 vs 559 [32.8%] of 1705 participants, P P = .003). During the Omicron BA.1 period, 5 days after symptom onset, 507 of 1613 people (31.1%) with COVID-19 stated that their symptoms were similar, and 95 people (5.9%) reported worsening symptoms. Among people testing positive, 80.2% of participants who were symptomatic and retested remained positive 5 days after symptom onset.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study, COVID-19 upper respiratory tract symptoms were more commonly reported during the Omicron BA.1 period than during the pre-Delta and Delta periods, with differences by vaccination status. Rapid antigen test positivity remained high 5 days after symptom onset, supporting guidelines requiring a negative test to inform the length of the isolation period.

Community-based COVID-19 testing and vaccination programs play a crucial role in mitigating racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 service delivery. They also represent a platform that can be leveraged to expand access to testing for chronic diseases, including diabetes, that disproportionately affect the Latinx community and other marginalized communities.To evaluate outcomes associated with a diabetes testing strategy designed to reach low-income Latinx persons by leveraging COVID-19 testing infrastructure and community trust developed during the COVID-19 pandemic.This health care improvement study was conducted from August 1 to October 5, 2021, at an outdoor, community-based COVID-19 testing site at a transport hub in the Mission Neighborhood in San Francisco, California. Because the program was designed to expand access to diabetes screening to the local community, all individuals presenting for on-site testing were eligible. Data were analyzed in November 2021.Integration of rapid, point-of-care hemoglobin A1c screening as a testing option in an existing low-barrier COVID-19 testing program.Evaluation was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and utilized programmatic data and structured surveys among clients and staff.Of 6631 individuals tested (median [IQR] age 39.3 [29.7-51.3] years; 3417 [52.3%] female, 4348 [65.6%] Latinx), 923 (13.9%) underwent hemoglobin A1c testing with or without COVID-19 testing and 5708 (86.1%) underwent COVID-19 testing only. Individuals tested for diabetes were more likely to be Latinx (763 of 923 individuals [82.7%] who underwent testing were Latinx vs 3585 of 5708 [62.8%] not undergoing testing), have an annual household income of less than $50 000 (450 individuals [81.2%] vs 2409 individuals [66.0%]), and not have health insurance (381 individuals [47.2%] vs 1858 individuals [39.9%]), and 206 (48.0%) had never tested for diabetes before. Overall, 313 (33.9%) and 113 (12.2%) individuals had prediabetes and diabetes, respectively; only 141 of 354 of these individuals (39.8%) had a primary care clinician whom they had seen in the prior 12 months, which was lower among Latinx individuals (113 of 307 individuals [36.8%] vs 28 of 47 [59.6%]). Acceptability of the rapid testing program was high-98% were satisfied with their visit and 96% said they would return for future services; key factors underpinning acceptability included friendly staff, efficiency, and a convenient location.In this health care improvement study conducted within an existing community-based COVID-19 testing program, integrating rapid testing for diabetes was feasible, reached low-income Latinx individuals, and identified many persons with prediabetes and diabetes, most of whom lacked access to services in formal health care settings. Leveraging pandemic-related public health responses represents an important opportunity for engaging socioeconomically disadvantaged populations into care for diabetes.