Finding the off-ramp: Rethinking severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) preoperative screening

Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Asymptomatic Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 Polymerase Chain Reaction Screening: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

An early report has shown the clinical benefit of the asymptomatic preoperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening test, and some clinical guidelines recommended this test. However, the cost-effectiveness of asymptomatic screening was not evaluated. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of universal preoperative screening of asymptomatic patients for SARS-CoV-2 using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.

METHODS

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of asymptomatic screening using a decision tree model from a payer perspective, assuming that the test-positive rate was 0.07% and the screening cost was 8500 Japanese yen (JPY) (approximately 7601 US dollars [USD]). The input parameter was derived from the available evidence reported in the literature. A willingness-to-pay threshold was set at 5 000 000 JPY/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

The incremental cost of 1 death averted was 74 469 236 JPY (approximately 566 048 USD) and 291 123 368 JPY/QALY (approximately 2 212 856 USD/QALY), which was above the 5 000 000 JPY/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio fell below 5 000 000 JPY/QALY only when the test-positive rate exceeded 0.739%. However, when the probability of developing a postoperative pulmonary complication among SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was below 0.22, asymptomatic screening was never cost-effective, regardless of how high the test-positive rate became.

CONCLUSIONS

Asymptomatic preoperative universal SARS-CoV-2 PCR screening is not cost-effective in the base case analysis. The cost-effectiveness mainly depends on the test-positive rate, the frequency of postoperative pulmonary complications, and the screening costs; however, no matter how high the test-positive rate, the cost-effectiveness is poor if the probability of developing postoperative pulmonary complications among patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 is sufficiently reduced.

Comparison of nucleocapsid antigen with strand-specific reverse-transcription PCR for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Tests that sensitively detect the presence of actively replicating SARS-CoV-2 may improve patient care by allowing the safe and timely discontinuation of isolation. Correlates of active replication include nucleocapsid antigen and virus minus-strand RNA.

METHODS

Qualitative agreement of the DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) with minus-strand RNA was determined using 402 upper respiratory specimens from 323 patients previously tested using a laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 strand-specific RT-qPCR. Nucleocapsid antigen levels, minus-strand and plus-strand cycle threshold values, as well as virus culture, were used to evaluate discordant specimens. Receiver operating characteristic curves were also used to identify virus RNA thresholds for active replication, including values harmonized to the World Health Organization International Standard.

RESULTS

Overall agreement was 92.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 89.0 - 94.5], positive percent agreement was 90.6% (95% CI: 84.4 - 95.0), and negative percent agreement was 92.8% (95% CI: 89.0 - 95.6). The kappa coefficient was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77 - 0.88). Discordant specimens contained low levels of nucleocapsid antigen and minus-strand RNA. 84.8% (28/33) were negative by culture. Sensitivity-optimized plus-strand RNA thresholds for active replication were 31.6 cycles or 3.64 log₁₀ IU/mL; resulting in 100.0% sensitivity (95% CI: 97.6 to 100.0) and 55.9 specificity (95% CI: 49.7 to 62.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Detection of nucleocapsid antigen by CLIA performs equivalently to minus-strand detection via strand-specific RT-qPCR, though these methods may overestimate replication-competent virus compared to culture. Careful implementation of biomarkers for actively replicating SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to inform infection control decision-making and patient management.

Asymptomatic screening for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as an infection prevention measure in healthcare facilities: Challenges and considerations

Testing of asymptomatic patients for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ie, "asymptomatic screening) to attempt to reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission has been extensive and resource intensive, and such testing is of unclear benefit when added to other layers of infection prevention mitigation controls. In addition, the logistic challenges and costs related to screening program implementation, data noting the lack of substantial aerosol generation with elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and the adverse patient and facility consequences of asymptomatic screening call into question the utility of this infection prevention intervention. Consequently, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) recommends against routine universal use of asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare facilities. Specifically, preprocedure asymptomatic screening is unlikely to provide incremental benefit in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the procedural and perioperative environment when other infection prevention strategies are in place, and it should not be considered a requirement for all patients. Admission screening may be beneficial during times of increased virus transmission in some settings where other layers of controls are limited (eg, behavioral health, congregate care, or shared patient rooms), but widespread routine use of admission asymptomatic screening is not recommended over strengthening other infection prevention controls. In this commentary, we outline the challenges surrounding the use of asymptomatic screening, including logistics and costs of implementing a screening program, and adverse patient and facility consequences. We review data pertaining to the lack of substantial aerosol generation during elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and we provide guidance for when asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 may be considered in a limited scope.

Estimate of undetected severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in acute-care hospital settings using an individual-based microsimulation model

Objective:

Current guidance states that asymptomatic screening for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prior to admission to an acute-care setting is at the facility’s discretion. This study’s objective was to estimate the number of undetected cases of SARS-CoV-2 admitted as inpatients under 4 testing approaches and varying assumptions.

Design and setting:

Individual-based microsimulation of 104 North Carolina acute-care hospitals

Patients:

All simulated inpatient admissions to acute-care hospitals from December 15, 2021, to January 13, 2022 [ie, during the SARS-COV-2 ο (omicron) variant surge].

Interventions:

We simulated (1) only testing symptomatic patients, (2) 1-stage antigen testing with no confirmatory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, (3) 1-stage antigen testing with a confirmatory PCR for negative results, and (4) serial antigen screening (ie, repeat antigen test 2 days after a negative result).

Results:

Over 1 month, there were 77,980 admissions: 13.7% for COVID-19, 4.3% with but not for COVID-19, and 82.0% for non–COVID-19 indications without current infection. Without asymptomatic screening, 1,089 (credible interval [CI], 946–1,253) total SARS-CoV-2 infections (7.72%) went undetected. With 1-stage antigen screening, 734 (CI, 638–845) asymptomatic infections (67.4%) were detected, with 1,277 false positives. With combined antigen and PCR screening, 1,007 (CI, 875–1,159) asymptomatic infections (92.5%) were detected, with 5,578 false positives. A serial antigen testing policy detected 973 (CI, 845–1,120) asymptomatic infections (89.4%), with 2,529 false positives.

Conclusions:

Serial antigen testing identified >85% of asymptomatic infections and resulted in fewer false positives with less cost per identified infection compared to combined antigen plus PCR testing.

Otolaryngology in the face of A pandemic

Although infrequent, pandemics are serious public health concerns with unpredictable courses. The COVID-19 pandemic began over 2 years ago and is far from over. This pandemic has spread rapidly throughout the world and led to several million deaths, making it commonly compared to the deadly Spanish influenza pandemic. Policy and safety measures are constantly being adapted to reduce transmission rates. The pandemic places stress on all healthcare workers, but especially otolaryngology providers due to their direct contact with airway connected cavities. This puts them at high risk for infection and has impacted inpatient and outpatient otolaryngology care, as well as education, research, and mental health.