Analytic sensitivity of the Abbott BinaxNOW lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant
Kanjilal, S.; Chalise, S.; Shami Shah, A.; Cheng, C.-A.; Senussi, Y.; Springer, M.; Walt, D. R.
Show abstract
The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has motivated a re-evaluation of the test characteristics for lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFIAs), commonly referred to as rapid antigen tests. To address this need, we evaluated the analytic sensitivity of one of the most widely used LFIAs in the US market, the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag At-Home Card using 32 samples of Omicron and 30 samples of the Delta variant. Samples were chosen to intentionally over-represent the range of viral loads where differences are most likely to appear. We found no changes in the analytic sensitivity of the BinaxNOW assay by variant even after controlling for variation in cycle threshold values in the two populations. Similar to prior studies, the sensitivity of the assay is highly dependent on the amount of virus present in the sample. While the analytic sensitivity of the BinaxNOW LFIA remains intact versus the Omicron variant, its clinical sensitivity is influenced by the interaction between viral replication, the dynamics of tissue tropism and the timing of sampling. Further research is necessary to optimally adapt current testing strategies to robustly detect early infection by the Omicron variant to prevent transmission.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Analytical and Clinical Comparison of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Detection 97%
- Estimating the false positive rate of highly automated SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing 96%
- Performance and Implementation Evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen Test in a High-throughput Drive-through Community Testing Site in Massachusetts 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Reagent and Virus Benchmarking Panel for a Uniform Analytical Performance Assessment of N Antigen–Based Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19 96%
- Performance of the Cue COVID-19 Molecular Test for Point of Care: Insights from a multi-site clinic service model 96%
- Avoiding false positive SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test results with point-of-care molecular testing on residual test buffer 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Is the glass half full? Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples 96%
- Comparison of Cepheid Xpert Xpress and Abbott ID Now to Roche cobas for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 95%
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative study of four SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) platforms demonstrates that ID NOW performance is impaired substantially by patient and specimen type. 96%
- Verification of the Abbott Alinity m Resp-4-Plex Assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus 96%
- Analytical Performance of the AMDI Fast PCR Mini Respiratory Panel 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Production and performance assessment of a SARS-CoV-2 biomimetic in a verification program for pandemic readiness 94%
- A comparative study of real-time RT-PCR based SARS-CoV-2 detection methods and its application to human derived and surface swabbed material 94%
- Two Stage Hierarchical Group Testing Strategy to Increase SARS-CoV-2 Testing Capacity at an Institution of Higher Education: A Retrospective Analysis 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.