Abstract
Background Over-the-counter rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 with an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States generally include a condition of authorization to evaluate the test’s performance in asymptomatic individuals when used serially. A goal of this study was to investigate the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen serial testing and generate data to support regulatory decisions.
Objective To describe a novel study design to evaluate serial use of rapid antigen tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus among asymptomatic individuals.
Design Prospective cohort study using a decentralized approach. Eligible participants from across the U.S. could enroll and complete this study from their home environment through a study app. Participant enrollment was prioritized based on regional 7-day case rates, participants’ vaccination status, and sociodemographic characteristics prior to enrollment.
Prioritization criteria were adjusted on a daily or weekly basis. Enrolled participants were mailed rapid antigen tests and molecular comparator collection kits and asked to test every 48 hours for 15 days. Three companies’ rapid antigen tests were used in the study; assignment of participant to a test was criteria-based and non-random, precluding head-to-head comparison between the tests.
Participants Mainland United States residents over 2 years old with no reported COVID-19 symptoms in the 14 days prior to study enrollment.
Main Measures Participant demographics, COVID-19 vaccination status, and geographic distribution were used to understand the impact of the site-less recruitment and enrollment strategy.
Key Results A total of 7,361 participants enrolled in the study between October 18, 2021 and February 15, 2022. Throughout the study, 369 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including 167 who were asymptomatic and tested negative on SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays to start the study. This exceeded the initial enrollment goals of 60 positive participants. We enrolled participants from 44 of the 48 mainland U.S. states, and geographic distribution of participants shifted in accordance with the changing COVID-19 prevalence nationwide.
Conclusions The novel, digital site-less approach employed in the ‘Test Us At Home’ study enabled rapid, efficient, and rigorous evaluation of rapid diagnostics for COVID-19, and can be adapted across research disciplines to optimize study enrollment and accessibility.
INTRODUCTION
Over-the-counter (OTC) rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 tests present unique opportunities for widespread COVID-19 testing. However, the authorization of these tests under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) generally imposes a requirement on companies to evaluate their rapid antigen test’s performance for detecting asymptomatic infections with serial screening. To accomplish this, it is necessary to conduct a longitudinal study to observe the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and performance of rapid antigen tests across the course of infection.5
The challenge of conducting this study is further compounded by fluctuations in the daily incidence of SARS-CoV-2 across different geographical regions. For instance, on September 1, 2021, Massachusetts reported 24.2 cases of SARS-CoV-2 per 100k residents; however, on that same date, the state of Georgia reported 85.9 cases per 100k residents.6 Further, asymptomatic positivity rate from screening studies has been found to be between 1.9% and 3%.7 A study to identify new-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection in this setting presents limited viable options, especially when considering the financial resources needed to set up multiple in-person recruitment centers to facilitate recruitment from different areas of the country where case-rate may be high at any given time. However, recruitment and enrollment methodologies often fall short, with 11% of sites in multi-center clinical trials failing to enroll any participants, 40% unable to meet recruitment goals, and nearly half of enrolled participants dropping out of trials prior to study completion.8,9 Additionally, despite efforts to increase diversity in clinical trials, clinical trial participants are still predominantly white and English-speaking, posing ethical and scientific issues.10–12 Digital site-less studies pose great opportunities to enable community-based recruitment and retention across geographic regions, and have been facilitated by increased acceptance of digital medicine and mobile technologies in recent years.13
This manuscript describes the design, implementation, and completion of a novel, digital, site-less study called ‘Test Us at Home’ funded by the NIH Rapid Acceleration Diagnostics (RADx) Program. This study is a result of the collaboration between UMass Chan Medical School, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In this manuscript, we outline the rationale for key decision-making and describe findings of the operational effort needed to successfully collect data under this novel paradigm. We describe the challenges faced by our study team and how we overcame those challenges to provide rapid, rigorous evaluation of OTC diagnostics across diverse participants of all ages in community-based settings.
METHODS
Study Design
This prospective cohort study recruited participants over two-years old who were asymptomatic and self-reported absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the three months prior to enrollment. Participants were asked to test via rapid antigen test and molecular comparator every 48-hours for 15 days. Primary analysis was restricted to participants that started the study with a negative result on SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays.
Study Objectives
The primary objective of this collaboration between the FDA, NIH, and the RADx Tech Clinical Studies Core at UMass Chan was to generate right-of-reference data that can be used towards FDA EUA. To accomplish this, we aimed to evaluate the performance of serial use of three different rapid antigen test to detect a new-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection, as determined by a laboratory-based molecular test. Secondary objectives of this study were to understand the different factors associated with detection of asymptomatic positive patients using OTC devices, including the optimal testing frequency and duration for individuals after exposure to COVID-19. Lastly, this study aimed to identify whether there are certain subpopulations that are more likely to test positive asymptomatically.
Study Population and Recruitment
To approximate the performance of rapid antigen tests in the general public, the FDA suggested against preferentially enrolling participants with a known history of SARS-CoV-2 exposure (oral communication, August 3, 2021). Based on the FDA guidance, the goal of the study was to recruit at least 60 participants who started the study without any symptoms and with a negative SARS-CoV-2 molecular test and who subsequently tested positive during the study period. Due to the fluctuating rates of COVID-19 positivity and the importance of recruiting asymptomatic participants, we employed a decentralized study design whereby eligible participants from anywhere in the mainland United States except for Arizona could participate. Residents from the state of Arizona were excluded because Quest Diagnostics, the laboratory performing molecular tests for this study, does not provide direct-to-consumer tests in that state. Additional inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed in Table 1. Recruitment relied on the engagement of community stakeholders, including local public health officials and community organizers, to advertise the study and reach communities nationwide. Periodic analyses were conducted to inform enrollment goals based on observed precision for positive percent agreement.
Enrollment
Participants who expressed interest in the study received an email or flyer with instructions for downloading the study app onto their phone or device and performing eligibility screening. The study app was a custom interface designed through the MyDataHelps platform. To enroll in the study, participants answered a series of questions to determine their eligibility and whether they meet the study’s criteria for enrollment at a given time. All eligible participants underwent automated prioritization based on a-priori criteria that were adjusted on a daily or weekly basis (Supplemental Figure 1, Supplemental Figure 2). We adjusted prioritization criteria to preferentially enroll populations based on their region’s SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates, community-level vaccination, and participants sociodemographic characteristics. This step occurred prior to consenting, and data collected was discarded if the participant did not enroll in the study before the data collection period ended; these data were never accessible to the study team unless the participant consented to take part in the study. Periodic analyses were conducted to inform enrollment goals based on observed precision for positive percent agreement. Eligible participants who did not match the preferred criteria for enrollment during that time received a note saying that they cannot enroll in the study at this time but would receive communication from the study team when/if they became eligible (Supplemental Figure 3). These participants were placed on a “waiting list”, which was reviewed with regard to changing priority criteria throughout the study.
If eligible for enrollment, participants 18 years of age or older were asked to read the e-consent form and provide their signature through the study app (Supplemental Figure 4). Participants younger than 18 years were asked to review the e-assent and e-consent form with the support of their parent(s) or guardian(s) and provide assent for participation, while the parent/guardian provided consent for participation in the study. To acknowledge participants for their time participating in study, participants were eligible to receive up to $250 for timely completion of all sample collections (Supplemental Figure 5). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the WIRB-Copernicus Group.
Test Distribution
On enrollment, participants were asked to provide their shipping information through the study app. Participants were assigned to one of three OTC tests (Quidel QuickVue At-Home OTC COVID-19 Test, Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Self Test, or BD Veritor™ At-Home COVID-19 Test) using an automated algorithm that was informed by the investigators’ discretion based on enrollment numbers and geographic location of the participants to allow for pragmatic distribution of the tests and fulfillment of the sample size (Supplemental Figure 6).
The three readily available rapid antigen tests used in the study are all authorized for emergency use by the FDA and were selected for evaluation to provide multiple assessments and facilitate generalizing results to non-participating companies. These tests will be hereby referred to as test brands A, B, and C (randomly assigned), as the purpose of the study was not to directly compare different test performances. Participants residing together and enrolling with the same address or enrolled in a group, such as a cohort of classmates, were assigned the same OTC test, to avoid mixing of test types between participants. Groups were given unique codes to input on enrollment (i.e. group codes), to ensure members were easily identifiable. As a result of this strategy, the assignment of tests to participants were non-random, and we intentionally did not pursue a strategy to compare performance between different tests because that was outside the scope of this project.
Because molecular assays require a prescription by a licensed physician, the study team contracted with PWNHealth, a national clinician network, and developed an automated order filing system working with Quest Diagnostics to place the requisite orders (Supplemental Figure 7). A total of 10 OTC tests and 7 home-collection kits supporting testing with the molecular comparators were provided to each participant. Participants received OTC tests and PCR home-collection kits by mail through separate shipments, unless participants enrolled at an approved in-person location, in which case participants were handed both types of testing kits directly. Once the test kits were received, participants were asked to confirm receipt through the study app prior to starting the testing period. If a participant needed additional OTC tests or PCR home-collection kits during the study period (e.g. tests were damaged upon delivery or lost in the mail), the study team provided additional tests.
Testing Schedule
Participants were asked to perform the OTC test and collect the specimen for molecular comparator testing on the same day roughly every 48 hours during the 15-day testing period (Table 2, Supplemental Figure 8). Immediately prior to testing, participants were asked to record any symptoms on the day of testing. The study app provided a push-notification testing reminder at the 44-hour mark and additional notifications every two hours until the 52-hour mark if the participant had not completed their tests. Participants were instructed via the app to have at least a 15-minute break between the OTC test and the sample collection for molecular tests. Participants were asked to only test with the OTC test on day 15 (Table 2). Participants were asked to record the results of the OTC tests when available by selecting one of the following options: “Negative”, “Positive”, “Invalid”, or “Don’t Know”, and upload a photo of the test strip through the app (Supplemental Figure 9). Participants assigned to Test C were instead asked to download the Test C company-specific app which contained a test reader. The company test reader asked participants to upload a photo of the test strip and provided rapid antigen test results in real time. Test C users were asked to report the test result given by the test reader, rather than self-interpretation, to the study app. Test C participants were also asked to upload a picture in the study app for validation. If the participant tested positive by OTC test, they were referred to the OTC device’s instructions and told to contact their healthcare provider for any medical questions. In the event of an invalid OTC test result, the participant was asked to perform a second OTC test. If the second OTC result was also invalid, the participant was not asked to perform additional OTC tests on that day and was instructed to continue to the PCR sample collection (at least 15 minutes after OTC sample collection). Participants were responsible for shipping the PCR collection kit containing the sample using the pre-paid FedEx envelope based on the instructions provided by Quest Diagnostics, which were authorized by the FDA for emergency use.
Molecular Testing Procedures
Due to concerns of potential false-positive molecular tests, the FDA recommended the use of two types of molecular assays, and potentially, a third assay, if the prior two assays were discordant (oral communication, August 3, 2021).23,4 Once participant samples were received at Quest Diagnostics, the sample was divided into aliquots to perform Roche Cobas 6800 SARS-CoV-2 PCR and Quest Laboratory Developed RT-PCR (LDT) for all participants (Supplemental Figure 10). An additional aliquot was preserved by the Quest laboratory to allow for testing of the sample on Hologic Aptima Transcription Mediated Amplification (TMA) assay, and the UMass Chan team submitted an additional order for the Hologic Aptima TMA assay when the results of the Roche Cobas and Quest LDT were discordant or if at least one of the PCR assays resulted as inconclusive. All three molecular assays used are highly sensitive, authorized by EUA, and run per instructions per use. Remnant samples of sample fluid from home-collection kits were frozen at -80 Celsius and shipped to UMass Chan Medical School for future testing. Results of the molecular PCR assays were available to participants through the Quest results portal and through communication from the study team. All participants that tested positive by molecular test received a phone call from a study team member. For determining performance statistics, a molecular test was considered as positive only if a majority of the three molecular assays were positive. In the event of discordant results, the participant was contacted by the study staff to explain the results and the results were made available through the study app.
Communication with the study team
Participants were provided a study hotline staffed with research coordinators to provide support during extended hours during the weekdays from 8 AM to 9 PM EST. Participants were also able to contact the study team via email outside of the hotline hours. All calls between coordinators and participants were documented in a call log containing the length of the call, the reason for the call, narrative about the call, and whether the issue was resolved.
Data Management
There were three primary sources of data (Supplemental Figure 11). All participant-reported data were collected through the MyDataHelps smartphone app and downloaded incrementally through secure file transfer protocol to UMass Chan servers. The molecular testing data were shared by Quest Diagnostics through an established datafeed between Quest and UMass Chan servers, which populated output of molecular assays.
However, the PCR cycle threshold (CT) values and results of the tiebreaker assays were not part of routinely abstracted data and required manual abstraction. Finally, tracking reports were used to document all communications between participants and the study staff. All three sources of data were combined using a participant’s unique identifier assigned by the MyDataHelps app. Paired OTC and PCR data were merged by matching on participant identifier and date of testing. When test dates were not aligned or there were unmatched results, a member of the study team reviewed all testing data from the participants to adjudicate paired findings. The most common reason for mismatched dates was due to missing dates of collection or transcription errors, as date of collection for PCR sample is handwritten by the participant on the Quest requisition form. Study staff reconciled possible mismatched test results by reviewing data for requisition numbers entered in the app, shipment tracking data, and contact reports from the study. If mismatched data could not be adequately aligned, those data were considered as ineligible due to failed quality-checks. Additional adjudication undertaken by the study team prior to data lock included a manual review of all rapid antigen test images for participants who either had a self-reported positive, don’t know, or invalid OTC result or if they tested positive on molecular test at any point during the study. All data were de-identified and shared with the FDA throughout the study. At the end of the study, the final and cleaned dataset was shared with the FDA and company-specific data were shared with the companies. All data will be made available on the NIH Data Hub once the main findings from this study are published.
RESULTS
Enrollment
In total, 7,361 participants enrolled in the study between October 18, 2021 and February 15, 2022 (Figure 1a). Due to complications with the Test C company app, Test C enrollment began on November 4, 2021, three weeks after Test A and B enrollment started (Figure 1b). Following initial surges in recruitment, the enrollment waitlist was implemented on November 24, 2021 to allow for refinement of enrollment from geographic hotspots (Figure 2). In total, 369 participants tested positive on molecular assays during the study and 167 of those were eligible for analyses (Figure 3).
Figure 1a: Figure 1b: a: Test A and B enrollment opens to individuals with specific group codes on October 18, 2021; b: Enrollment opens nationwide on October 26, 2021; c: Test C enrollment starts on November 4, 2021; d: Enrollment waitlist approach implemented on November 24, 2021
Note: COVID-19 monthly incidence calculated from CDC COVID Data Tracker6
a= participants replaced their assigned rapid antigen tests with commercially obtained rapid antigen tests; b= dates of RTPCR testing could not be verified based on triangulation of self-reported, shipping, and resulting data; A, B, and C refer to rapid antigen test assignment. c = at-least two positive molecular assays from a single sample per participant(Roche Cobas 6800, Quest LDT, Hologic Aptima)
Geographic and Sociodemographic Participant Characteristics
The geographic and sociodemographic characteristics of study participants changed over the course of the study, reflecting the shifts in the enrollment approach. In total, participants from 44 of the 48 mainland U.S. states enrolled in the study (Figure 2). In October, the majority of initial study recruitment occurred on a college campus in Wisconsin, resulting in a young, predominantly white, student population (Figure 2; Table 3). Additionally, only 3.1% of enrolled participants in October were unvaccinated for SARS-CoV-2. In November, study recruitment was expanded throughout the United States, with enrollment from more than 20 different states. Participants from rural populations comprised 14% of the participants recruited in November. In December and January, study enrollment shifted to prioritize unvaccinated participants, preferentially pulling these participants from the study waitlist, resulting in 24.6% and 21.4% of monthly enrollment being unvaccinated (Table 3). In January, recruitment efforts also focused on increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the study population, and the minority of participants enrolled during January identified as White (42.6%). Additionally, 10.5% of participants enrolled in January were of Hispanic origin.
Operational Support and Logistics
Throughout the study, there were 11,646 contacts between coordinators and 4,389 distinct participants (Table 4). This accounted for 33,356 minutes of coordination time. Coordinators and participants communicated by phone call (39.7%), email (30.6%), voicemail (29.7%), and push notification within the study app (4.2%). The most common reason for contact was to share COVID-19 test results from molecular tests, which accounted for 24.3% of all calls. Other common reasons for contact included testing reminders (19.1%), shipping and receipt of test kits (16.7%), compensation (16.3%), and clarifying the testing schedule (10.4%). The company-generated app for Test C was initially only compatible with certain smartphones, and many participants were unable to use the company app effectively. Due to these challenges, we delayed enrollment for Test C by two weeks and troubleshooted the app with the company, to ensure participants were able to use the app appropriately (Figure 1a). With participants assigned to Tests A and B, there was not a company app, so similar issues did not arise. Further, the decentralized design necessitated an increased reliance on shipping vendors, allowing us to reach participants across the mainland US states. However, this also required a variety of tracking methods to keep track of the 58,888 kits shipped. This study spanned the holiday season, which resulted in additional shipping delays; 1.2% (n =728) of packages were affected by logistical or participant errors that led to an unviable or missing RT-PCR test result.
DISCUSSION
Using an innovative digital, site-less study approach, we developed recruitment and enrollment strategies to capture new onset COVID-19 infections most effectively throughout the country, resulting in the detection of nearly three times as many new-onset COVID-19 cases as originally specified. The digital site-less approach allowed us to seamlessly and dynamically change enrollment patterns and sample different populations based on the evolving nature of the pandemic, to assess rapid diagnostics with agility, efficiency, and rigor among asymptomatic individuals.
The digital site-less approach offered great agility to alter the recruitment strategy to fit our needs throughout the evolution of the study. Initially, to iron out the study logistics, including shipping rapid antigen tests and molecular comparator collection kits directly to participants, we opened study recruitment in October 2021 to members of a Midwestern university marching band who were traveling together, where we anticipated a high amount of unmasked, close contact interactions. This group enrollment is reflected in the demographics of participants in October, who were younger and had a higher proportion of white participants than participants recruited in November through January. Later, we were able to geographically alter the sampling to enroll participants from throughout the United States and use a waitlist to selectively sample certain populations by zip-code, determined by community prevalence of COVID-19, and demographics to ensure we were curating a representative sample. For example, after seeing low enrollment of participants over age 65 years in October through December, in January, we selectively pulled those over 65 years of age off the waitlist, increasing the proportion of participants in this group from 1.5% in October to 13.4% in January. Additionally, the recruitment strategy resulted in 16.6% of all enrolled participants being unvaccinated, matching nationwide estimates for those over 5 years of age (CDC data tracker). The waitlist approach also allows us to ensure that enrollment was not solely clustered among those who have greatest access to recruitment strategies, including news articles and social media, but rather gave the time for information to disseminate to and within various communities.
The remote design also resulted in gains in study efficiency, in terms of both coordinator time and cost. Instead of requiring coordinators to schedule and supervise serial sample collections for each participant, the virtual, site-less design allowed participants to test in their homes and on their time, increasing accessibility to individuals with various employment and school schedules, as well as living situations. According to the study coordination logs, direct participant-coordinator phone calls averaged to just over 1-hour per day (82.3 minutes over 161 days of the study) and consisted primarily of testing reminders and returning molecular test results to participants, as well as notifying positive participants of their infection. As clinical research coordinators on average support upwards of seven studies concurrently and approximately two-thirds of coordinators report being expected to work more time on studies than allotted, it is important to understand methods to optimize study coordination time, while maintaining quality and consistency.14 Here, we showed the ability for site-less digital trials to run with minimal participant-coordinator interaction, while maintaining high enrollment and adherence to the study protocol (data not shown).
Site-less cohort studies have become increasingly common, as advances in technology have made virtual recruitment and engagement more feasible.15 However, digital products and solutions in clinical research remain underutilized.16 Site-less studies can not only facilitate recruitment and participant engagement, but they can also enhance scientific rigor and design. Through coordination with shipping services, home-test distributors, and clinical labs, we organized shipments of study supplies to participants on enrollment, to allow participants to start testing at home within 24 to 48 hours of enrollment with minimal participant burden. Further, we coordinated the pick-up and shipment of repeated biological samples to the central laboratory throughout the study period for comparator testing, which has seldom been done within the framework of a digital study. The success of these workflows opens the door for the adaptation of site-less studies to answer many complex research questions, by integrating survey responses, biological samples, and home health monitoring.
There are a few potential limitations to the study. We did not require participants to be under video observation while performing the rapid antigen tests or collecting samples for the molecular tests, which could have resulted in improper technique and sample collection.
However, our study facilitated use of these tests ‘as intended’ and ‘as authorized’ by the FDA and therefore may represent better approximation of real-world performance of the tests than traditional clinical studies, which simulate a home environment in controlled research sites.
Additionally, the smartphone app required participants to take images of the rapid antigen tests; therefore, we could verify the rapid antigen test results for all participants. Due to the scale and nature of this study, we relied on commercial vendors for assembly and distribution of the testing kits, which precluded our ability to provide study-specific written instructions enclosed within the kit; we instead relied on providing all study-specific instructions through the smartphone app. This resulted in confusion for some participants who did not start testing right away after receiving the test kits or did not start with performing both rapid antigen and PCR tests concurrently. However, our study team were able to detect these instances and intervene by contacting the participants who did not begin testing for an extended period of time after receiving the tests or were not performing paired testing. Because of the logistical constraints, we could not facilitate a cold-chain transportation of the collected specimen, which preclude our ability to perform viral culture studies, which would have provided additional insights into the performance of rapid antigen tests. The workflow for sample collection for molecular tests required participants to handwrite the date and time of sample collection on a form, and the data generated from the laboratory had to be linked with rapid antigen testing data based on Participant ID and day of testing, which resulted in mismatches and required substantial manual effort for reconciling differences by reviewing tracking history of sample collection. Finally, the requirement of smartphone ownership to participate in the study disadvantages people without smartphones. However, smartphone use is ubiquitous and has been accelerated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.17 Additionally, we submit that the barrier to participation created by requiring a smartphone is lesser than that created by requiring participants to take time off from their day during business hours to travel to a clinical study site, multiple times during the study.
These limitations notwithstanding, this study represents the most robust attempt at understanding the performance of serial use of rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection among asymptomatic participants. We summarize the advantages of our digital siteless approach in Table 5 and outline recommendations for future digital studies. The collaboration behind this study between the NIH, FDA, and the RADx Clinical Studies Core allowed for development of a protocol that was innovative and a clinical study that will provide tremendous value to federal agencies, academic researchers and companies for elucidating key questions related to raid antigen tests’ performance. Future collaborative efforts to develop best practice guidelines and infrastructure for performing digital clinical studies are needed to advance scientific community’s ability to perform rigorous clinical research and answer vexing questions.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
Competing Interest Statement
VK is principal, and TS, SS, CN, ES, and EH are employees of the health care technology company CareEvolution, which was contracted to configure the smartphone study app, provide operational and logistical support, and collaborate on overall research approach. LS and LR are employees of Quest Diagnostics LLC, which was contracted to provide direct-to-consumer kits, logistical support for nationwide RT-PCR testing, and operational support for producing molecular testing results. DDM reports consulting and research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, consulting and research support from Fitbit, consulting, and research support from Flexcon, research grant from Boehringer Ingelheim, consulting from Avania, non-financial research support from Apple Computer, consulting/other support from Heart Rhythm Society. YCM has received tests from Quanterix, Becton-Dickinson, Ceres, and Hologic for research-related purposes, consults for Abbott on subjects unrelated to SARS-CoV-2, and receives funding support to Johns Hopkins University from miDiagnostics. AS receives non-financial support from CareEvolution for collaborative research activities.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the NIH RADx Tech program under 3U54HL143541-02S2 and NIH CTSA grant UL1TR001453. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Salary support from the National Institutes of Health U54HL143541, R01HL141434, R01HL137794, R61HL158541, R01HL137734, U01HL146382 (AS, DDM), U54EB007958-13 (YCM, MLR), AI272201400007C, UM1AI068613 (YCM).
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to our study participants and to our collaborators from the National Institute of Health (NIBIB and NHLBI) who provided scientific input into the design of this study and interpretation of our results, but could not formally join as co-authors due to institutional policies and to the Food and Drug Administration (Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health) for their involvement in the primary TUAH study. We received meaningful contributions from Drs. Bruce Tromberg, Jill Heemskerk, Dennis Buxton, Erin Iturriaga, Jue Chen, Andrew Weitz, and Krishna Juluru. We are thankful to the developers of the rapid antigen tests, who donated their tests for research use in this study. We are thankful to county health departments across the country who helped with recruitment for this siteless study by spreading the word in their networks.
