1
|
Duval D, Evans B, Sanders A, Hill J, Simbo A, Kavoi T, Lyell I, Simmons Z, Qureshi M, Pearce-Smith N, Arevalo CR, Beck CR, Bindra R, Oliver I. Non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce COVID-19 transmission in the UK: a rapid mapping review and interactive evidence gap map. J Public Health (Oxf) 2024; 46:e279-e293. [PMID: 38426578 PMCID: PMC11141784 DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdae025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2023] [Revised: 01/15/2024] [Accepted: 01/23/2024] [Indexed: 03/02/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were crucial in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, although uncertainties about their effectiveness remain. This work aimed to better understand the evidence generated during the pandemic on the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in the UK. METHODS We conducted a rapid mapping review (search date: 1 March 2023) to identify primary studies reporting on the effectiveness of NPIs to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Included studies were displayed in an interactive evidence gap map. RESULTS After removal of duplicates, 11 752 records were screened. Of these, 151 were included, including 100 modelling studies but only 2 randomized controlled trials and 10 longitudinal observational studies.Most studies reported on NPIs to identify and isolate those who are or may become infectious, and on NPIs to reduce the number of contacts. There was an evidence gap for hand and respiratory hygiene, ventilation and cleaning. CONCLUSIONS Our findings show that despite the large number of studies published, there is still a lack of robust evaluations of the NPIs implemented in the UK. There is a need to build evaluation into the design and implementation of public health interventions and policies from the start of any future pandemic or other public health emergency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Duval
- Research, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK
| | - B Evans
- Research, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK
| | - A Sanders
- Research, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK
| | - J Hill
- Clinical and Public Health Response Division, UKHSA, London E14 5EA, UK
| | - A Simbo
- Evaluation and Epidemiological Science Division, UKHSA, Colindale NW9 5EQ, UK
| | - T Kavoi
- Cheshire and Merseyside Health Protection Team, UKHSA, Liverpool L3 1DS, UK
| | - I Lyell
- Greater Manchester Health Protection Team, UKHSA, Manchester M1 3BN, UK
| | - Z Simmons
- Research, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK
| | - M Qureshi
- Clinical and Public Health Response Division, UKHSA, London E14 5EA, UK
| | - N Pearce-Smith
- Research, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK
| | - C R Arevalo
- Research, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK
| | - C R Beck
- Evaluation and Epidemiological Science Division, UKHSA, Salisbury SP4 0JG, UK
| | - R Bindra
- Clinical and Public Health Response Division, UKHSA, London E14 5EA, UK
| | - I Oliver
- Director General Science and Research and Chief Scientific Officer, UKHSA, London E14 5EA, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Findlater L, Pierotti L, Turner C, Wensley A, Chen C, Seaman S, Samartsidis P, Charlett A, Anderson C, Hughes G, Hickman M, Edeghere O, Oliver I. Evaluating the impact on health outcomes of an event that resulted in a delay in contact tracing of COVID-19 cases in England, September 2020: an observational study. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e064982. [PMID: 37827740 PMCID: PMC10583033 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064982] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2022] [Accepted: 07/13/2023] [Indexed: 10/14/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In September 2020, 15 861 SARS-CoV-2 case records failed to upload from the Second Generation Surveillance System (SGSS) to the Contact Tracing Advisory Service (CTAS) tool, delaying the contact tracing of these cases. This study used CTAS data to determine the impact of this delay on population health outcomes: transmission events, hospitalisations and mortality. Previously, a modelling study suggested a substantial impact. DESIGN Observational study. SETTING England. POPULATION Individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and their reported contacts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Secondary attack rates (SARs), hospitalisations and deaths among primary and secondary contacts were calculated, compared with all other concurrent, unaffected cases. Affected SGSS records were matched to CTAS records. Successive contacts and cases were identified and matched to hospital episode and mortality outcomes. RESULTS Initiation of contact tracing was delayed by 3 days on average in the primary cases in the delay group (6 days) compared with the control group (3 days). This was associated with lower completion of contact tracing: 80% (95% CI: 79% to 81%) in delay group and 83% (95% CI: 83% to 84%) in control group. There was some evidence to suggest increased transmission to non-household contacts among those affected by the delay. The SAR for non-household contacts was higher among secondary contacts in the delay group than the control group (delay group: 7.9%, 95% CI: 6.5% to 9.2%; control group: 5.9%, 95% CI: 5.3% to 6.6%). There did not appear to be a significant difference between the delay and control groups in the odds of hospitalisation (crude OR: 1.1 (95% CI: 0.9 to 1.2)) or death (crude OR: 0.7 (95% CI: 0.1 to 4.0)) among secondary contacts. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis suggests that the delay in contact tracing had a limited impact on population health outcomes; however, contact tracing was not completed for all individuals, so some transmission events might not be captured.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Livia Pierotti
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Charlie Turner
- UK Health Security Agency East of England, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Cong Chen
- UK Health Security Agency East of England, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - Gareth Hughes
- UK Health Security Agency North of England, Leeds, UK
| | - Matthew Hickman
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Obaghe Edeghere
- UK Health Security Agency Midlands and East of England, Birmingham, UK
| | - Isabel Oliver
- UK Health Security Agency South of England, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Daily use of lateral flow devices by contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases to enable exemption from isolation compared with standard self-isolation to reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. THE LANCET. RESPIRATORY MEDICINE 2022; 10:1074-1085. [PMID: 36228640 PMCID: PMC9625116 DOI: 10.1016/s2213-2600(22)00267-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2022] [Revised: 06/19/2022] [Accepted: 07/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
Background In the UK, during the study period (April to July, 2021), all contacts of people with COVID-19 were required to self-isolate for 10 days, which had adverse impacts on individuals and society. Avoiding the need to self-isolate for those who remain uninfected would be beneficial. We investigated whether daily use of lateral flow devices (LFDs) to test for SARS-CoV-2, with removal of self-isolation for 24 h if negative, could be a safe alternative to self-isolation as a means to minimise onward transmission of the virus. Methods We conducted a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial in adult contacts identified by COVID-19 contact tracing in England. Consenting participants were randomly assigned to self-isolation (single PCR test, 10-day isolation) or daily contact testing (DCT; seven LFD tests, two PCR tests, no isolation if negative on LFD); participants from a single household were assigned to the same group. Participants were prospectively followed up, with the effect of each intervention on onward transmission established from routinely collected NHS Test and Trace contact tracing data for participants who tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period and tertiary cases arising from their contacts (ie, secondary contacts). The primary outcome of the study was the attack rate, the percentage of secondary contacts (close contacts of SARS-CoV-2-positive study participants) who became COVID-19 cases (tertiary cases) in each group. Attack rates were derived from Bernoulli regression models using Huber-White (robust) sandwich estimator clustered standard errors. Attack rates were adjusted for household exposure, vaccination status, and ability to work from home. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9%. The primary analysis was a modified intention-to-treat analysis excluding those who actively withdrew from the study as data from these participants were no longer held. This study is registered with the Research Registry (number 6809). Data collection is complete; analysis is ongoing. Findings Between April 29 and July 28, 2021, 54 923 eligible individuals were enrolled in the study, with final group allocations (following withdrawals) of 26 123 (52·6%) participants in the DCT group and 23 500 (47·4%) in the self-isolation group. Overall, 4694 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR (secondary cases), 2364 (10·1%) in the self-isolation group and 2330 (8·9%) in the DCT group. Adjusted attack rates (among secondary contacts) were 7·5% in the self-isolation group and 6·3% in the DCT group (difference of –1·2% [95% CI –2·3 to –0·2]; significantly lower than the non-inferiority margin of 1·9%). Interpretation DCT with 24 h exemption from self-isolation for essential activities appears to be non-inferior to self-isolation. This study, which provided evidence for the UK Government's daily lateral flow testing policy for vaccinated contacts of COVID-19 cases, indicated that daily testing with LFDs could allow individuals to reduce the risk of onward transmission while minimising the adverse effects of self-isolation. Although contacts in England are no longer required to isolate, the findings will be relevant for future policy decisions around COVID-19 or other communicable infections. Funding UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.
Collapse
|
4
|
Love NK, Ready DR, Turner C, Yardley L, Rubin GJ, Hopkins S, Oliver I. The acceptability of testing contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases using serial, self-administered lateral flow devices as an alternative to self-isolation. J Med Microbiol 2022; 71. [PMID: 35947525 DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.001567] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction. Evidence suggests that although people modify their behaviours, full adherence to self-isolation guidance in England may be suboptimal, which may have a detrimental impact on COVID-19 transmission rates.Hypothesis. Testing asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 could reduce onward transmission by improving case ascertainment and lessen the impact of self-isolation on un-infected individuals.Aim. This study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a 'test to enable approach' as part of England's tracing strategy.Methodology. Contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were offered serial testing as an alternative to self-isolation using daily self-performed lateral flow device (LFD) tests for the first 7 days post-exposure. Asymptomatic participants with a negative LFD result were given 24 h of freedom from self-isolation between each test. A self-collected confirmatory PCR test was performed on testing positive or at the end of the LFD testing period.Results. Of 1760 contacts, 882 consented to daily testing, of whom 812 individuals were within 48 h of exposure and were sent LFD testing packs. Of those who declined to participate, 39.1% stated they had already accessed PCR testing. Of the 812 who were sent LFD packs, 570 (70.2%) reported one or more LFD results; 102 (17.9%) tested positive. Concordance between reported LFD result and a supplied LFD image was 97.1%. In total, 82.8% of PCR-positive samples and 99.6% of PCR-negative samples were correctly detected by LFD. The proportion of secondary cases from contacts of those who participated in the study and tested positive (6.3%; 95% CI: 3.4-11.1%) was comparable to a comparator group who self-isolated (7.6%; 95% CI: 7.3-7.8%).Conclusion. This study shows a high acceptability, compliance and positivity rates when using self-administered LFDs among contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Offering routine testing as a structured part of the contact tracing process is likely to be an effective method of case ascertainment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Derren R Ready
- UK Health Security Agency, England, UK.,Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Lucy Yardley
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.,Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - G James Rubin
- Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - Isabel Oliver
- UK Health Security Agency, England, UK.,Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Marsden L, Hughes DM, Corcoran R, Cheyne CP, Ashton M, Buchan I, Coffey E, García-Fiñana M. Daily testing of contacts of SARS-CoV-2 infected cases as an alternative to quarantine for key workers in Liverpool: A prospective cohort study. EClinicalMedicine 2022; 50:101519. [PMID: 35795716 PMCID: PMC9249302 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101519] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2022] [Revised: 05/23/2022] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Covid-19 test-to-release from quarantine policies affect many lives. The SMART Release pilot was the foundation of these policies and an element of the world's largest population cohort study of community-wide, SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing. The objective of the study was to evaluate daily lateral flow testing (LFT) as an alternative to 10-14 days quarantine for key worker contacts of known Covid-19 (or SARS-CoV-2 infection) cases. Methods Prospective cohort study incorporating quantitative and qualitative research methods to consider how serial LFT compares with PCR testing to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections and to understand experiences/compliance with testing and the viability of this quarantine harm-reduction strategy. Participants were residents of the Liverpool area who were key workers at participating fire, police, NHS and local government organisations in Liverpool, and who were identified as close contacts of cases between December 2020 and August 2021. Thematic qualitative analysis was used to evaluate stakeholder meetings. Findings Compliance with the daily testing regime was good across the three main organisations in this study with 96·9%, 93·7% and 92·8% compliance for Merseyside Police, Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service and Alder Hey Children's Hospital respectively. Out of 1657 participants, 34 positive Covid-19 cases were identified and 3 undetected by the daily LFT regime. A total of 8291 workdays would have been lost to self-isolation but were prevented due to negative daily tests. Organisations reported that daily contact testing proved useful, flexible and well-tolerated initiative to sustain key worker services. Interpretation Compliance with daily testing among key workers was high, helping sustain service continuity during periods of very high risk of staffing shortage. Services reported that the pilot was a "lifeline" and its successful delivery in Liverpool has been replicated elsewhere. Funding This report is independent research commissioned by DHSC and part funded by DHSC and NIHR. Further funding was received from Liverpool City Council, the EPSRC and MRC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucy Marsden
- Public Health Department, Liverpool City Council, Liverpool, Cunard Building, Water Street, Liverpool, L3 1DS
| | - David M. Hughes
- Department of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Rhiannon Corcoran
- Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool
| | - Christopher P. Cheyne
- Department of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Matt Ashton
- Public Health Department, Liverpool City Council, Liverpool, Cunard Building, Water Street, Liverpool, L3 1DS
| | - Iain Buchan
- Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Emer Coffey
- Public Health Department, Liverpool City Council, Liverpool, Cunard Building, Water Street, Liverpool, L3 1DS
| | - Marta García-Fiñana
- Department of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
SARS-CoV-2 rapid test versus RT-qPCR on noninvasive respiratory self-samples during a city mass testing campaign. J Infect 2022; 85:90-122. [PMID: 35395317 DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.04.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|