Empirical evidence to understand the human factor for effective rapid testing against SARS-CoV-2

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (January 2023)

Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms and, in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Are self-test kits still relevant post COVID-19 pandemic? Qualitative study on working adults' perceptions

BACKGROUND

Other than self-isolation measures, self-testing is likely to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and may become a valuable approach in future outbreaks of infectious diseases. This study delves into the perceptions and experiences of working adults who utilised COVID-19 self-test kits in Singapore during the post-pandemic period.

METHODS

Employing a qualitative descriptive design, in-depth interviews were conducted with 40 working adults from diverse occupations, with a median age of 35 years. Thematic analysis of transcribed interviews was carried out by two independent qualitative research-trained researchers.

RESULTS

Facilitators included personal motivations like safeguarding vulnerable individuals and the convenience of user-friendly self-test kits. Proximal environmental factors encompassed situations involving close contacts and large gatherings, while distal factors involved workplace regulations, public health campaigns, mass media influence, and trust in authorised kits. Nonetheless, barriers include discomfort, cost, uncertainty about proper technique, and evolving testing requirements. Positive test results prompted participants to notify contacts and self-isolate, whereas negative results encouraged a return to normalcy. Participants recommend sustained testing for new variants and vulnerable groups, though some view it as unnecessary due to pandemic normalisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-testing emerged as a social phenomenon influenced by societal obligations and relationships across multiple levels. Effective communication strategies may play a role in fostering trust and ensuring that working adults sustain the practice of self-testing; therefore, further research is needed to explore their potential impact. Such efforts could be valuable for maintaining vigilance and achieving effective disease control in the post-COVID-19 pandemic landscape.

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people's behavior in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it. Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioral prods. Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk. Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review. The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalizing or moralizing messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. The use of these nudges by specialized units during the COVID-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. Major recommendations of the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles, or evidence-based data. SDM was misused in the COVID-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticized and the unethical behavior of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic, and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

Estimating the impact of COVID-19 self-test availability and modifications in test-strategy on overall test uptake using an experimental vignette study

To inform future Dutch COVID-19 testing policies we did an experimental vignette study to investigate whether inclusion of the less reliable lateral flow tests (self-tests) would change test-uptake sufficiently to improve population-level test sensitivity. A representative sample (n = 3,270) participated in a 2-by-2 online experiment to evaluate the effects of test-guidelines including self-testing advice (IV1), and the effects of self-test availability (IV2) on expected test uptake (PCR test, self-test or no test) and sensitivity of the overall test strategy (primary outcome). Across four scenarios, changing test advice did not affect expected testing behaviour. Self-test availability, however, increased the timeliness of testing, the number of people testing, and overall test strategy sensitivity. Based on these findings, we recommend that (national) policy facilitates a supply of self-tests at home, for example through free and pro-active distribution of test-kits during a pandemic. This could substantially enhance the chances of timely detecting and isolating patients.

Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023)

COVID-19 self-testing strategy (COVIDST) can rapidly identify symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and their contacts, potentially reducing transmission. In this living systematic review, we evaluated the evidence for real-world COVIDST performance. Two independent reviewers searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization database, Cochrane COVID-19 registry, Europe PMC) for the period April 1st, 2020, to January 18th, 2023. Data on studies evaluating COVIDST against laboratory-based conventional testing and reported on diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, acceptability, impact, and qualitative outcomes were abstracted. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses of COVIDST accuracy were performed (n = 14). Subgroup analyses (by sampling site, symptomatic/asymptomatic infection, supervised/unsupervised strategy, with/without digital supports) were conducted. Data from 70 included studies, conducted across 25 countries with a median sample size of 817 (range: 28-784,707) were pooled. Specificity and DOR was high overall, irrespective of subgroups (98.37-99.71%). Highest sensitivities were reported for: a) symptomatic individuals (73.91%, 95%CI: 68.41-78.75%; n = 9), b) mid-turbinate nasal samples (77.79%, 95%CI: 56.03-90.59%; n = 14), c) supervised strategy (86.67%, 95%CI: 59.64-96.62%; n = 13), and d) use of digital interventions (70.15%, 95%CI: 50.18-84.63%; n = 14). Lower sensitivity was attributed to absence of symptoms, errors in test conduct and absence of supervision or a digital support. We found no difference in COVIDST sensitivity between delta and omicron pre-dominant period. Digital supports increased confidence in COVIDST reporting and interpretation (n = 16). Overall acceptability was 91.0-98.7% (n = 2) with lower acceptability reported for daily self-testing (39.5-51.1%). Overall feasibility was 69.0-100.0% (n = 5) with lower feasibility (35.9-64.6%) for serial self-testing. COVIDST decreased closures in school, workplace, and social events (n = 4). COVIDST is an effective rapid screening strategy for home-, workplace- or school-based screening, for symptomatic persons, and for preventing transmission during outbreaks. These data will guide COVIDST policy. Our review demonstrates that COVIDST has paved the way for self-testing in pandemics worldwide.

Association of neighborhood-level sociodemographic factors with Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) distribution of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests in 5 US communities

BACKGROUND

Many interventions for widescale distribution of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 have utilized online, direct-to-consumer (DTC) ordering systems; however, little is known about the sociodemographic characteristics of home-test users. We aimed to characterize the patterns of online orders for rapid antigen tests and determine geospatial and temporal associations with neighborhood characteristics and community incidence of COVID-19, respectively.

METHODS

This observational study analyzed online, DTC orders for rapid antigen test kits from beneficiaries of the Say Yes! Covid Test program from March to November 2021 in five communities: Louisville, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fulton County, Georgia; O'ahu, Hawaii; and Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti, Michigan. Using spatial autoregressive models, we assessed the geospatial associations of test kit distribution with Census block-level education, income, age, population density, and racial distribution and Census tract-level Social Vulnerability Index. Lag association analyses were used to measure the association between online rapid antigen kit orders and community-level COVID-19 incidence.

RESULTS

In total, 164,402 DTC test kits were ordered during the intervention. Distribution of tests at all sites were significantly geospatially clustered at the block-group level (Moran's I: p < 0.001); however, education, income, age, population density, race, and social vulnerability index were inconsistently associated with test orders across sites. In Michigan, Georgia, and Kentucky, there were strong associations between same-day COVID-19 incidence and test kit orders (Michigan: r = 0.89, Georgia: r = 0.85, Kentucky: r = 0.75). The incidence of COVID-19 during the current day and the previous 6-days increased current DTC orders by 9.0 (95% CI = 1.7, 16.3), 3.0 (95% CI = 1.3, 4.6), and 6.8 (95% CI = 3.4, 10.2) in Michigan, Georgia, and Kentucky, respectively. There was no same-day or 6-day lagged correlation between test kit orders and COVID-19 incidence in Indiana.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that online ordering is not associated with geospatial clustering based on sociodemographic characteristics. Observed temporal preferences for DTC ordering can guide public health messaging around DTC testing programs.

Facilitators and barriers to use rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 among community-dwelling older adults in Hong Kong: A population-based cross-sectional random telephone survey

Faster diagnosis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is crucial for surveillance, prompt implementation of infection control measures and adequate patient care among older adults. This study investigated the behavioral intention to use Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) and associated factors among older adults in Hong Kong for health monitoring and when having COVID-19-like symptoms. This was a population-based cross-sectional random telephone survey of 370 Chinese-speaking adults aged ≥65 years. The behavioral intention to use RAT was the main outcome, and logistic regression models were used to assess the associated factors, using SPSS (version 26.0.). Results indicate that among the participants, 90.3% had used RAT, of which 21.6% obtained positive results. The common challenges faced when using RAT included: difficulty choosing the right RAT kit, uncertainty about how to use RAT, and not knowing what to do after getting a positive result. Additionally, 27.3% intended to use RAT regularly for health status monitoring without any symptoms, while 87.0% if they had COVID-19-like symptoms. After adjustment for significant background characteristics, positive attitudes, perceiving Hong Kong government and their children and/or other family members would support them using RAT, belief that RAT health promotion materials were helpful to understand how to use RAT and thoughtful consideration of the veracity of COVID-19 specific information were associated with higher behavioral intention to use RAT both when having no symptoms and in presence of COVID-19-like symptoms. Having negative attitudes toward RAT was associated with a lower intention of RAT use only when having no symptoms. Addressing difficulties faced when using RAT, strengthening positive attitudes, involving significant others and empowering with adequate information-veracity evaluating skills are potentially vital strategies to increase RAT use among older adults.

Epidemic Management via Imperfect Testing: A Multi-criterial Perspective

Diagnostic testing may represent a key component in response to an ongoing epidemic, especially if coupled with containment measures, such as mandatory self-isolation, aimed to prevent infectious individuals from furthering onward transmission while allowing non-infected individuals to go about their lives. However, by its own nature as an imperfect binary classifier, testing can produce false negative or false positive results. Both types of misclassification are problematic: while the former may exacerbate the spread of disease, the latter may result in unnecessary isolation mandates and socioeconomic burden. As clearly shown by the COVID-19 pandemic, achieving adequate protection for both people and society is a crucial, yet highly challenging task that needs to be addressed in managing large-scale epidemic transmission. To explore the trade-offs imposed by diagnostic testing and mandatory isolation as tools for epidemic containment, here we present an extension of the classical Susceptible-Infected-Recovered model that accounts for an additional stratification of the population based on the results of diagnostic testing. We show that, under suitable epidemiological conditions, a careful assessment of testing and isolation protocols can contribute to epidemic containment, even in the presence of false negative/positive results. Also, using a multi-criterial framework, we identify simple, yet Pareto-efficient testing and isolation scenarios that can minimize case count, isolation time, or seek a trade-off solution for these often contrasting epidemic management objectives.

The acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen self-testing: A cross-sectional study in China

Compared with the nucleic acid amplification test (NATT), the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid antigen self-testing (RAST) has advantages in speed and convenience. However, little is known about people's acceptance and influencing factors for SARS-CoV-2 RAST. A cross-sectional study was conducted from April 21 to 30, 2022 in China. The χ² test and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify the influencing factors. The structural equation model was used to test the extended protective motivation theory (PMT) model hypotheses. Among the total of 5107 participants, 62.5% were willing to accept the SARS-CoV-2 RAST. There were significant differences in acceptance among different residences (p < 0.001), educational level (p < 0.001), occupation (p < 0.001), monthly income (p < 0.001), travel frequency (p < 0.05), and feelings about NATT (p < 0.001). Response efficacy (β = 0.05; p = 0.025) and self-efficacy (β = 0.84; p < 0.001) had a positive effect, while response cost showed a negative effect (β = -0.07; p < 0.001). The public's major concerns about SARS-CoV-2 RAST are its reliability, testing method, price, and authority. Overall, a moderate intention to use SARS-CoV-2 RAST was found among the Chinese population. The extended PMT can be used for the prediction of intention to accept the RAST. We need to take measures to increase people's acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 RAST.

[Use of and Attitudes toward Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Corresponding Antibodies: Results of a Nationally Representative Survey in Late Summer 2021]

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of knowledge regarding utilization of and attitudes towards tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany. Our work aimed to reduce this gap.

METHODS

Data were taken from a nationally representative online survey (August 24th to 3rd September 2021, n=3,075; mean age: 44.5 years). Utilization of and attitudes toward Covid-19-tests were quantified in detail.

RESULTS

In sum, 79.1% of respondents had already undergone an appropriate test to detect SARS-CoV-2 test (mainly rapid antigen testing at rapid testing centers and self-testing) or an antibody test. With the exception of a PCR test, Covid-19 tests were rarely perceived as uncomfortable. Respondents were most likely to prefer a rapid antigen test in a rapid testing center. The main reasons for using self-testing as well as rapid antigen testing at rapid testing centers were (i) protection of others, (ii) for their own health precautions, and (iii) traveling. The main reasons for not using self-testing/rapid antigen testing at the workplace/training center were: (i) already vaccinated against Covid-19/recovered from Covid-19, followed by (ii) the home office workplace, and (iii) a lack of perceived benefit. Nearly 80% were somewhat or very satisfied, with access to testing at the workplace/training center and rapid testing centers.

CONCLUSION

Our work described the use of and aspects of attitudes toward tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany in late summer 2021. At that time, such test offers were already used quite often and were predominantly perceived as not being very unpleasant. The protection of other individuals was one of the main reasons for the use of such tests. Future research in this area is desirable (e. g., among the oldest old and in times when free-of-charge testing is no longer offered).

Point of care molecular and antigen detection tests for COVID-19: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been critical to support and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Point of care testing (POCT) for SARS-CoV-2 has been a widely used tool for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

AREAS COVERED

POCT nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and rapid antigen tests (RATs) have been the most readily used POCT for SARS-CoV-2. Here, current knowledge on the utility of POCT NAATs and RATs for SARS-CoV-2 are reviewed and discussed alongside aspects of quality assurance factors that must be considered for successful and safe implementation of POCT.

EXPERT OPINION

Use cases for implementation of POCT must be evidence based, regardless of the test used. A quality assurance framework must be in place to ensure accuracy and safety of POCT.

Empirical evidence to understand the human factor for effective rapid testing against SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid antigen point-of-care and home tests are available to laypeople. In four cross-sectional mixed-methods data collections conducted between December 2020 and March 2021 (n = 4,026), we showed that a majority of subjects were willing to test despite mistrust and ignorance regarding rapid tests' validity. Experimental evidence shows that low costs and access to events could increase testing intentions. Mandatory reporting and isolation after positive results were not identified as major barriers. Instead, assuming that testing and isolation can slow down the pandemic and the possibility to protect others were related to greater willingness to get tested. While we did not find evidence for risk compensation for past tests, experimental evidence suggests that there is a tendency to show less mask wearing and physical distancing in a group of tested individuals. A short communication intervention reduced complacent behavior. The derived recommendations could make rapid testing a successful pillar of pandemic management.