We found no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Delta, overall or stratified by symptoms. Given the substantial proportion of asymptomatic vaccine breakthrough cases with high viral levels, interventions, including masking and testing, should be considered in settings with elevated coronavirus disease 2019 transmission.

Background

SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests are an important public health tool.

Objective

To 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.

Design

Cross-sectional surveillance study.

Setting

Free, walk-up, outdoor, urban community testing and vaccine site led by Unidos en Salud, serving a predominantly Latinx community highly impacted by COVID-19.

Participants

Persons seeking COVID-19 testing in January 2022.

Measurements

Simultaneous 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.

Results

Among 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.

Limitation

Participants were a cross-sectional sample from a community-based sentinel surveillance site, precluding study of viral or symptom dynamics.

Conclusion

BinaxNOW 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 source

University of California, San Francisco.

COVID-19 oral treatments require initiation within 5 days of symptom onset. Although antigen tests are less sensitive than RT-PCR, rapid results could facilitate entry to treatment. We collected anterior nasal swabs for BinaxNOW and RT-PCR testing and clinical data at a walk-up, community site in San Francisco, California between January and June 2022. SARS-CoV-2 genomic sequences were generated from positive samples and classified according to subtype and variant. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to estimate the expected proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infected persons who would have been diagnosed within 5 days of symptom onset using RT-PCR versus BinaxNOW testing. Among 25,309 persons tested with BinaxNOW, 2,799 had concomitant RT-PCR. 1137/2799 (40.6%) were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive. We identified waves of predominant omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12, BA.4, and BA.5 among 720 sequenced samples. Among 1,137 RT-PCR positive samples, 788/1137 (69%) were detected by BinaxNOW; 94% (669/711) of those with Ct value <30 were detected by BinaxNOW. BinaxNOW detection was consistent over lineages. In analyses to evaluate entry to treatment, BinaxNOW detected 81.7% (361/442, 95% CI: 77-85%) of persons with COVID-19 within 5 days of symptom onset. In comparison, RT-PCR (24-hour turnaround) detected 84.2% (372/442, 95% CI: 80-87%) and RT-PCR (48-hour turnaround) detected 67.0% (296/442, 95% CI: 62-71%) of persons with COVID-19 within 5 days of symptom onset. BinaxNOW detected high viral load from anterior nasal swabs consistently across omicron sublineages emerging between January and June of 2022. Simulations support BinaxNOW as an entry point for COVID-19 treatment in a community field setting.

Introduction

Unhealthy alcohol use significantly contributes to viral non-suppression among persons with HIV (PWH). It is unknown whether brief behavioural interventions to reduce alcohol use can improve viral suppression among PWH with unhealthy alcohol use in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

Methods

As part of the SEARCH study (NCT04810650), we conducted an individually randomized trial in Kenya and Uganda of a brief, skills-based alcohol intervention among PWH with self-reported unhealthy alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption [AUDIT-C], prior 3 months, ≥3/female; ≥4/male) and at risk of viral non-suppression, defined as either recent HIV viral non-suppression (≥400 copies/ml), missed visits, out of care or new diagnosis. The intervention included baseline and 3-month in-person counselling sessions with interim booster phone calls every 3 weeks. The primary outcome was HIV viral suppression (<400 copies/ml) at 24 weeks, and the secondary outcome was unhealthy alcohol use, defined by AUDIT-C or phosphatidylethanol (PEth), an alcohol biomarker, ≥50 ng/ml at 24 weeks.

Results

Between April and September 2021, 401 persons (198 intervention, 203 control) were enrolled from HIV clinics in Uganda (58%) and Kenya (27%) and alcohol-serving venues in Kenya (15%). At baseline, 60% were virally suppressed. Viral suppression did not differ between arms at 24 weeks: suppression was 83% in intervention and 82% in control arms (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.93-1.1). Among PWH with baseline viral non-suppression, 24-week suppression was 73% in intervention and 64% in control arms (RR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.93-1.43). Unhealthy alcohol use declined from 98% at baseline to 73% in intervention and 84% in control arms at 24 weeks (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.94). Effects on unhealthy alcohol use were stronger among women (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56-0.88) than men (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85-1.01) and among participants with a baseline PEth⩽200 ng/ml (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.87) versus >200 ng/ml (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92-1.02).

Conclusions

In a randomized trial of 401 PWH with unhealthy alcohol use and risk for viral non-suppression, a brief alcohol intervention reduced unhealthy alcohol use but did not affect viral suppression at 24 weeks. Brief alcohol interventions have the potential to improve the health of PWH in SSA by reducing alcohol use, a significant driver of HIV-associated co-morbidities.

Introduction

Optimizing HIV prevention may require structured approaches for providing client-centred choices as well as community-based entry points and delivery. We evaluated the effect of a dynamic choice model for HIV prevention, delivered by community health workers (CHWs) with clinician support, on the use of biomedical prevention among persons at risk of HIV in rural East Africa.

Methods

We conducted a cluster randomized trial among persons (≥15 years) with current or anticipated HIV risk in 16 villages in Uganda and Kenya (SEARCH; NCT04810650). The intervention was a client-centred HIV prevention model, including (1) structured client choice of product (pre-exposure prophylaxis [PrEP] or post-exposure prophylaxis [PEP]), service location (clinic or out-of-clinic) and HIV testing modality (self-test or rapid test), with the ability to switch over time; (2) a structured assessment of patient barriers and development of a personalized support plan; and (3) phone access to a clinician 24/7. The intervention was delivered by CHWs and supported by clinicians who oversaw PrEP and PEP initiation and monitoring. Participants in control villages were referred to local health facilities for HIV prevention services, delivered by Ministry of Health staff. The primary outcome was biomedical prevention coverage: a proportion of 48-week follow-up with self-reported PrEP or PEP use.

Results

From May to July 2021, we enrolled 429 people (212 intervention; 217 control): 57% women and 35% aged 15-24 years. Among intervention participants, 58% chose PrEP and 58% chose PEP at least once over follow-up; self-testing increased from 52% (baseline) to 71% (week 48); ≥98% chose out-of-facility service delivery. Among 413 (96%) participants with the primary outcome ascertained, average biomedical prevention coverage was 28.0% in the intervention versus 0.5% in the control: a difference of 27.5% (95% CI: 23.0-31.9%, p<0.001). Impact was larger during periods of self-reported HIV risk: 36.6% coverage in intervention versus 0.9% in control, a difference of 35.7% (95% CI: 27.5-43.9, p<0.001). Intervention effects were seen across subgroups defined by sex, age group and alcohol use.

Conclusions

A client-centred dynamic choice HIV prevention intervention, including the option to switch between products and CHW-based delivery in the community, increased biomedical prevention coverage by 27.5%. However, substantial person-time at risk of HIV remained uncovered.