Optimal COVID-19 quarantine and testing strategies

Logistic advantage of two-step screening strategy for SARS-CoV-2 at airport quarantine

Background

Airport quarantine is required to reduce the risk of entry of travelers infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, it is challenging for both high accuracy and rapid turn-around time to coexist in testing; polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is time-consuming with high accuracy, while antigen testing is rapid with less accuracy. However, there are few data on the concordance between PCR and antigen testing.

Methods

Arrivals at three international airports in Japan between July 29 and September 30, 2020 were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using self-collected saliva by a screening strategy with initial chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) followed by confirmatory nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) only for intermediate range antigen concentrations.

Results

Among the 95,457 persons entering Japan during the period, 88,924 (93.2%) were tested by CLEIA, and 0.29% (254/88,924) were found to be SARS-CoV-2 antigen positive (≥4.0 pg/mL). NAAT was required for confirmatory testing in 0.58% (513/88,924) with intermediate antigen concentrations (0.67–4.0 pg/mL) whereby the virus was detected in 6.6% (34/513). This two-step strategy reduced the utilization of NAAT to one out of every 173 test subjects. The estimated performance of this strategy did not show significant increase in false negatives as compared to performing NAAT in all subjects.

Conclusions

Point of care testing by quantitative CLEIA using self-collected saliva is less labor-intensive and yields results rapidly, thus suitable as an initial screening test. Reserving NAAT for CLEIA indeterminate cases may prevent compromising accuracy while significantly improving the logistics of administering mass-screening at large venues.

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

BACKGROUND

Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. 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 the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA.

OBJECTIVE

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 non-medical settings.

METHODS

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. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on five diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Data on the clinical performance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization is mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared to reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared to asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

COVIDStrategyCalculator: A software to assess testing and quarantine strategies for incoming travelers, contact management, and de-isolation

While large-scale vaccination campaigns against SARS-CoV-2 are rolled out at the time of writing, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including the isolation of infected individuals and quarantine of exposed individuals, remain central measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Strategies that combine NPIs with innovative SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies may increase containment efficacy and help to shorten quarantine durations. We developed a user-friendly software tool that implements a recently published stochastic within-host viral dynamics model that captures temporal attributes of the viral infection, such as test sensitivity, infectiousness, and the occurrence of symptoms. Based on this model, the software allows to evaluate the efficacy of user-defined, arbitrary NPI and testing strategies in reducing the transmission potential in different contexts. The software thus enables decision makers to explore NPI strategies and perform hypothesis testing, e.g., with regard to the utilization of novel diagnostics or with regard to containing novel virus variants.

An intra-host SARS-CoV-2 dynamics model to assess testing and quarantine strategies for incoming travelers, contact management, and de-isolation

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) remain decisive tools to contain SARS-CoV-2. Strategies that combine NPIs with testing may improve efficacy and shorten quarantine durations. We developed a stochastic within-host model of SARS-CoV-2 that captures temporal changes in test sensitivities, incubation periods, and infectious periods. We used the model to simulate relative transmission risk for (1) isolation of symptomatic individuals, (2) contact person management, and (3) quarantine of incoming travelers. We estimated that testing travelers at entry reduces transmission risks to 21.3% ([20.7, 23.9], by PCR) and 27.9% ([27.1, 31.1], by rapid diagnostic test [RDT]), compared with unrestricted entry. We calculated that 4 (PCR) or 5 (RDT) days of pre-test quarantine are non-inferior to 10 days of quarantine for incoming travelers and that 8 (PCR) or 10 (RDT) days of pre-test quarantine are non-inferior to 14 days of post-exposure quarantine. De-isolation of infected individuals 13 days after symptom onset may reduce the transmission risk to <0.2% (<0.01, 6.0).

The possible threat of faking Covid-19 diagnostic tests and vaccination certifications: a call to an immediate action

The pandemic's recessive effect on the global economy created a 'de-globalized' process that detrimentally causes financial turmoil to countries whose economy depends on tourism, urban passenger transport services and civil aviation, among others. The need to help the most vulnerable industries non-resilient to the pandemic reopen to aid economic recovery amid the pandemic's threat is a very urgent concern. With the move to start the vaccination program against the threat of Covid-19, faking Covid-19 diagnostic testing certification pose a severe problem to matters of ethics and economics. If not taken seriously, falsifying documents that certify a person who has undergone Covid-19 vaccination could also happen. This paper argues that everyone's collective effort could be the real embodiment of hope toward a new normal world immune from the virus and malpractices.

Current and innovative methods for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection (Review)

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic has forced the scientific community to rapidly develop highly reliable diagnostic methods in order to effectively and accurately diagnose this pathology, thus limiting the spread of infection. Although the structural and molecular characteristics of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) were initially unknown, various diagnostic strategies useful for making a correct diagnosis of COVID‑19 have been rapidly developed by private research laboratories and biomedical companies. At present, rapid antigen or antibody tests, immunoenzymatic serological tests and molecular tests based on RT‑PCR are the most widely used and validated techniques worldwide. Apart from these conventional methods, other techniques, including isothermal nucleic acid amplification techniques, clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas (CRISPR/Cas)‑based approaches or digital PCR methods are currently used in research contexts or are awaiting approval for diagnostic use by competent authorities. In order to provide guidance for the correct use of COVID‑19 diagnostic tests, the present review describes the diagnostic strategies available which may be used for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection in both clinical and research settings. In particular, the technical and instrumental characteristics of the diagnostic methods used are described herein. In addition, updated and detailed information about the type of sample, the modality and the timing of use of specific tests are also discussed.

Current and innovative methods for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection (Review)

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic has forced the scientific community to rapidly develop highly reliable diagnostic methods in order to effectively and accurately diagnose this pathology, thus limiting the spread of infection. Although the structural and molecular characteristics of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) were initially unknown, various diagnostic strategies useful for making a correct diagnosis of COVID‑19 have been rapidly developed by private research laboratories and biomedical companies. At present, rapid antigen or antibody tests, immunoenzymatic serological tests and molecular tests based on RT‑PCR are the most widely used and validated techniques worldwide. Apart from these conventional methods, other techniques, including isothermal nucleic acid amplification techniques, clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas (CRISPR/Cas)‑based approaches or digital PCR methods are currently used in research contexts or are awaiting approval for diagnostic use by competent authorities. In order to provide guidance for the correct use of COVID‑19 diagnostic tests, the present review describes the diagnostic strategies available which may be used for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection in both clinical and research settings. In particular, the technical and instrumental characteristics of the diagnostic methods used are described herein. In addition, updated and detailed information about the type of sample, the modality and the timing of use of specific tests are also discussed.

High infectiousness immediately before COVID-19 symptom onset highlights the importance of continued contact tracing

Background

Understanding changes in infectiousness during SARS-COV-2 infections is critical to assess the effectiveness of public health measures such as contact tracing.

Methods

Here, we develop a novel mechanistic approach to infer the infectiousness profile of SARS-COV-2-infected individuals using data from known infector-infectee pairs. We compare estimates of key epidemiological quantities generated using our mechanistic method with analogous estimates generated using previous approaches.

Results

The mechanistic method provides an improved fit to data from SARS-CoV-2 infector-infectee pairs compared to commonly used approaches. Our best-fitting model indicates a high proportion of presymptomatic transmissions, with many transmissions occurring shortly before the infector develops symptoms.

Conclusions

High infectiousness immediately prior to symptom onset highlights the importance of continued contact tracing until effective vaccines have been distributed widely, even if contacts from a short time window before symptom onset alone are traced.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).

Assessing Testing Strategies and Duration of Quarantine in Contact Tracing for SARS-CoV-2: A Retrospective Study of San Francisco's COVID-19 Contact Tracing Program, June-August 2020

We sought to assess the proportion of elicited close contacts diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 at the start of and before exiting quarantine in San Francisco. From June 8 to August 31, 6946 contacts were identified: 3008 (46.3%) were tested, 940 (13.5%) tested positive, and 90% tested positive in the first 9 days of quarantine.

Routine asymptomatic testing strategies for airline travel during the COVID-19 pandemic: a simulation study

BACKGROUND

Routine viral testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2 infection might facilitate safe airline travel during the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate global spread of the virus. However, the effectiveness of these test-and-travel strategies to reduce passenger risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-level transmission remains unknown.

METHODS

In this simulation study, we developed a microsimulation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a cohort of 100 000 US domestic airline travellers using publicly available data on COVID-19 clinical cases and published natural history parameters to assign individuals one of five health states of susceptible to infection, latent period, early infection, late infection, or recovered. We estimated a per-day risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 corresponding to a daily incidence of 150 infections per 100 000 people. We assessed five testing strategies: (1) anterior nasal PCR test within 3 days of departure, (2) PCR within 3 days of departure and 5 days after arrival, (3) rapid antigen test on the day of travel (assuming 90% of the sensitivity of PCR during active infection), (4) rapid antigen test on the day of travel and PCR test 5 days after arrival, and (5) PCR test 5 days after arrival. Strategies 2 and 4 included a 5-day quarantine after arrival. The travel period was defined as 3 days before travel to 2 weeks after travel. Under each scenario, individuals who tested positive before travel were not permitted to travel. The primary study outcome was cumulative number of infectious days in the cohort over the travel period without isolation or quarantine (population-level transmission risk), and the key secondary outcome was the number of infectious people detected on the day of travel (passenger risk of infection).

FINDINGS

We estimated that in a cohort of 100 000 airline travellers, in a scenario with no testing or screening, there would be 8357 (95% uncertainty interval 6144-12831) infectious days with 649 (505-950) actively infectious passengers on the day of travel. The pre-travel PCR test reduced the number of infectious days from 8357 to 5401 (3917-8677), a reduction of 36% (29-41) compared with the base case, and identified 569 (88% [76-92]) of 649 actively infectious travellers on the day of flight; the addition of post-travel quarantine and PCR reduced the number of infectious days to 2520 days (1849-4158), a reduction of 70% (64-75) compared with the base case. The rapid antigen test on the day of travel reduced the number of infectious days to 5674 (4126-9081), a reduction of 32% (26-38) compared with the base case, and identified 560 (86% [83-89]) actively infectious travellers; the addition of post-travel quarantine and PCR reduced the number of infectious days to 3124 (2356-495), a reduction of 63% (58-66) compared with the base case. The post-travel PCR alone reduced the number of infectious days to 4851 (3714-7679), a reduction of 42% (35-49) compared with the base case.

INTERPRETATION

Routine asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 before travel can be an effective strategy to reduce passenger risk of infection during travel, although abbreviated quarantine with post-travel testing is probably needed to reduce population-level transmission due to importation of infection when travelling from a high to low incidence setting.

FUNDING

University of California, San Francisco.

Should I stay or should I go?

Analysing the characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus makes it possible to estimate the length of quarantine that reduces the impact on society and the economy, while minimising infections.