Experiences with opt-in, at-home screening for SARS-CoV-2 at a primary school in Germany: an implementation study

Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

More than 767 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 6.9 million deaths with COVID-19 have been recorded as of August 2023. Several public health and social measures were implemented in schools to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent onward transmission. We built upon methods from a previous Cochrane review to capture current empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of school measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an updated assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to keep schools open safely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Educational Resources Information Center, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program COVID-19 Evidence Reviews on 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies focused on measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, among students (aged 4 to 18 years) or individuals relating to the school, or both. We categorized studies that reported quantitative measures of intervention effectiveness, and studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures as either 'main' or 'supporting' studies based on design and approach to handling key confounders. We were interested in transmission-related outcomes and intended or unintended consequences.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts. We extracted minimal data for supporting studies. For main studies, one review author extracted comprehensive data and assessed risk of bias, which a second author checked. We narratively synthesized findings for each intervention-comparator-outcome category (body of evidence). Two review authors assessed certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The 15 main studies consisted of measures to reduce contacts (4 studies), make contacts safer (7 studies), surveillance and response measures (6 studies; 1 assessed transmission outcomes, 5 assessed performance of surveillance measures), and multicomponent measures (1 study). These main studies assessed outcomes in the school population (12), general population (2), and adults living with a school-attending child (1). Settings included K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12; 9 studies), secondary (3 studies), and K-8 (kindergarten to grade 8; 1 study) schools. Two studies did not clearly report settings. Studies measured transmission-related outcomes (10), performance of surveillance measures (5), and intended and unintended consequences (4). The 15 main studies were based in the WHO Regions of the Americas (12), and the WHO European Region (3). Comparators were more versus less intense measures, single versus multicomponent measures, and measures versus no measures. We organized results into relevant bodies of evidence, or groups of studies relating to the same 'intervention-comparator-outcome' categories. Across all bodies of evidence, certainty of evidence ratings limit our confidence in findings. Where we describe an effect as 'beneficial', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention; a 'harmful' effect does not favour the intervention and 'null' shows no effect either way. Measures to reduce contact (4 studies) We grouped studies into 21 bodies of evidence: moderate- (10 bodies), low- (3 bodies), or very low-certainty evidence (8 bodies). The evidence was very low to moderate certainty for beneficial effects of remote versus in-person or hybrid teaching on transmission in the general population. For students and staff, mostly harmful effects were observed when more students participated in remote teaching. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that in the general population there was probably no effect on deaths and a beneficial effect on hospitalizations for remote versus in-person teaching, but no effect for remote versus hybrid teaching. The effects of hybrid teaching, a combination of in-person and remote teaching, were mixed. Very low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a harmful effect on risk of infection among adults living with a school student for closing playgrounds and cafeterias, a null effect for keeping the same teacher, and a beneficial effect for cancelling extracurricular activities, keeping the same students together and restricting entry for parents and caregivers. Measures to make contact safer (7 studies) We grouped studies into eight bodies of evidence: moderate- (5 bodies), and low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a beneficial effect of mask mandates on transmission-related outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence showed full mandates were probably more beneficial than partial or no mandates. Evidence of a beneficial effect of physical distancing on risk of infection among staff and students was mixed. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that ventilation measures probably reduce cases among staff and students. One study (very low-certainty evidence) found that there may be a beneficial effect of not sharing supplies and increasing desk space on risk of infection for adults living with a school student, but showed there may be a harmful effect of desk shields. Surveillance and response measures (6 studies) We grouped studies into seven bodies of evidence: moderate- (3 bodies), low- (1 body), and very low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Daily testing strategies to replace or reduce quarantine probably helped to reduce missed school days and decrease the proportion of asymptomatic school contacts testing positive (moderate-certainty evidence). For studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures, the proportion of cases detected by rapid antigen detection testing ranged from 28.6% to 95.8%, positive predictive value ranged from 24.0% to 100.0% (very low-certainty evidence). There was probably no onward transmission from contacts of a positive case (moderate-certainty evidence) and replacing or shortening quarantine with testing may have reduced missed school days (low-certainty evidence). Multicomponent measures (1 study) Combining multiple measures may have led to a reduction in risk of infection among adults living with a student (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A range of measures can have a beneficial effect on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilization and school attendance. We rated the current findings at a higher level of certainty than the original review. Further high-quality research into school measures to control SARS-CoV-2 in a wider variety of contexts is needed to develop a more evidence-based understanding of how to keep schools open safely during COVID-19 or a similar public health emergency.

Implementing a pilot study of COVID-19 self-testing in high-risk populations and remote locations: results and lessons learnt

BACKGROUND

Rapid antigen-detection tests for SARS-CoV-2 self-testing represent a useful tool for pandemic control and expanding access to community-level case screening. COVID-19 self-tests have been extensively used in high-income countries since 2021; however, their introduction and programmatic implementation in low- and middle-income countries was delayed. We aimed to identify and continuously improve a weekly COVID-19 self-testing model among staff at healthcare facilities and schools.

METHODS

This mixed-methods, observational prospective study was conducted in 5 healthcare centres and 24 schools in Georgia, between June and December 2022. The study comprised the integration of COVID-19 self-testing into the national mandatory testing programme for high-risk groups, with primary distribution of self-tests among staff performed weekly, plus secondary distribution to their household members. These use cases were selected because NCDC was seeking to strengthen their already strong weekly testing programme, by investigating self-testing to ease the burden of testing in the healthcare system. Online surveys and semi-structured interviews were used for data collection.

RESULTS

In total, 2156 participants were enrolled (1963 female, 72%). At baseline and mid- and end-points, 88%, 97% and 99%, respectively, of participants agreed/strongly agreed they would self-test. Similarly, the majority were willing to report their self-testing results (88%, 98% and 96% at baseline and mid- and end-points, respectively). Weekly reporting of test results to the national COVID-19 database was high during all the implementation. There were 622 COVID-19 positive results reported, and linked to care, from 601 individuals (282 participants and 319 household members). Findings from qualitative interviews showed great satisfaction with self-testing for its convenience, ease of use, trust in the results, no need to travel for diagnostics, and increased perception of safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings contribute to the evidence-base regarding self-testing strategies conducted via workplaces and secondary distribution to households. Willingness to perform a COVID-19 self-test increased after implementation. This pilot enhanced pandemic preparedness through expansion of the national self-testing reporting system, development of communications materials, changes in the national legal framework and coordination mechanisms, and improved perceptions around self-care in the community. The lessons learnt can inform operational aspects of the introduction and scale-up of self-care strategies.

Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023)

COVID-19 self-testing strategy (COVIDST) can rapidly identify symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and their contacts, potentially reducing transmission. In this living systematic review, we evaluated the evidence for real-world COVIDST performance. Two independent reviewers searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization database, Cochrane COVID-19 registry, Europe PMC) for the period April 1st, 2020, to January 18th, 2023. Data on studies evaluating COVIDST against laboratory-based conventional testing and reported on diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, acceptability, impact, and qualitative outcomes were abstracted. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses of COVIDST accuracy were performed (n = 14). Subgroup analyses (by sampling site, symptomatic/asymptomatic infection, supervised/unsupervised strategy, with/without digital supports) were conducted. Data from 70 included studies, conducted across 25 countries with a median sample size of 817 (range: 28-784,707) were pooled. Specificity and DOR was high overall, irrespective of subgroups (98.37-99.71%). Highest sensitivities were reported for: a) symptomatic individuals (73.91%, 95%CI: 68.41-78.75%; n = 9), b) mid-turbinate nasal samples (77.79%, 95%CI: 56.03-90.59%; n = 14), c) supervised strategy (86.67%, 95%CI: 59.64-96.62%; n = 13), and d) use of digital interventions (70.15%, 95%CI: 50.18-84.63%; n = 14). Lower sensitivity was attributed to absence of symptoms, errors in test conduct and absence of supervision or a digital support. We found no difference in COVIDST sensitivity between delta and omicron pre-dominant period. Digital supports increased confidence in COVIDST reporting and interpretation (n = 16). Overall acceptability was 91.0-98.7% (n = 2) with lower acceptability reported for daily self-testing (39.5-51.1%). Overall feasibility was 69.0-100.0% (n = 5) with lower feasibility (35.9-64.6%) for serial self-testing. COVIDST decreased closures in school, workplace, and social events (n = 4). COVIDST is an effective rapid screening strategy for home-, workplace- or school-based screening, for symptomatic persons, and for preventing transmission during outbreaks. These data will guide COVIDST policy. Our review demonstrates that COVIDST has paved the way for self-testing in pandemics worldwide.

Experiences with regular testing of students for SARS-CoV-2 in primary and secondary schools: results from a cross-sectional study in two Norwegian counties, autumn 2021

BACKGROUND

To allow for normal school attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic, regular testing of students was introduced in the autumn 2021 in Norway to manage COVID-19 transmission. We mapped the experiences of five stakeholders (parents, students, school staff and administration, contact tracing teams) regarding the implementation of regular testing in primary and secondary schools in Oslo and Viken counties, to assess the acceptability through different indicators and improve future guidelines.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted between October and November 2021 to explore experiences of implementation, compliance, satisfaction, difficulties, concerns, confidence in regular testing, quality of teaching and school attendance. Five stakeholder groups were invited to participate: contact tracing teams; school administrators and employees in primary, lower secondary, and upper-secondary school; students in upper-secondary school and parents of primary and lower secondary students. Bivariate analyses were performed for students, parents, and school employees groups. Descriptive analyses were done for contact tracing teams and school administrators.

RESULTS

Four thousand five hundred sixty-five participants were included in our study. School attendance increased for most of the students in primary and lower secondary schools in Oslo and Viken after the implementation of regular testing. Students across all school levels reported high testing compliance and satisfaction with the implementation. Compliance was significantly associated with an increasing number of weekly tests across all school levels up to two weekly tests. Contact tracing teams were less satisfied with the cooperation with the educational authorities compared to the school employees. Higher educational level of parents was significantly associated with decreased concern of their children getting infected at school after regular testing implementation. Concerned parents were more likely to keep children at home from school, to protect all household members from becoming infected. Lack of time and communication were reported as challenging factors to implementation.

CONCLUSION

Compliance, satisfaction, and confidence in regular testing of COVID-19 were high among stakeholders. An acceptable testing regime for a future regular testing implementation would be a home-based, bi-weekly test. Increased awareness of the importance of school attendance, safety of regular testing along with good communication and role clarification should be prioritized for stakeholders involved in regular testing.

SARS-CoV-2 Screening Testing Programs for Safe In-person Learning in K-12 Schools

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening testing is a recommended mitigation strategy for schools, although few descriptions of program implementation are available.

METHODS

Kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) students and staff practicing universal masking during the delta and omicron variant waves from five schools in Durham, North Carolina and eight schools in Kansas City, Missouri participated; Durham's program was structured as a public health initiative facilitated by school staff, and Kansas City's as a research study facilitated by a research team. Tests included school-based rapid antigen or polymerase chain reaction testing, at-home rapid antigen testing, and off-site nucleic acid amplification testing.

RESULTS

We performed nearly 5700 screening tests on more than 1600 K-12 school students and staff members. The total cost for the Durham testing program in 5 public charter K-12 schools, each with 500-1000 students, was $246 587 and approximately 752 h per semester; cost per test was $70 and cost per positive result was $7076. The total cost for the Kansas City program in eight public K-12 schools was $292 591 and required approximately 537 h in personnel time for school-based testing; cost per test was $132 and cost per positive result was $4818. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates were generally lower (0-16.16%) than rates in the community (2.7-36.47%) throughout all testing weeks.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Voluntary screening testing programs in K-12 schools are costly and rarely detect asymptomatic positive persons, particularly in universally masked settings.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04831866.

From disgusting and complicated to simple and brilliant: Implementation perspectives and lessons learned from users and rejectors of mail-in SARS-CoV-2 gargle tests

Background

Despite the important role of testing as a measure against the COVID-19 pandemic, user perspectives on SARS-CoV-2 tests remain scarce, inhibiting an improvement of testing approaches. As the world enters the third year of the pandemic, more nuanced perspectives of testing, and opportunities to expand testing in a feasible and affordable manner merit consideration.

Methods

Conducted amid the second pandemic wave (late 2020-early 2021) during and after a multi-arm trial evaluating SARS-CoV-2 surveillance strategies in the federal state Baden-Württemberg, Germany, this qualitative sub-study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of how test users and test rejectors perceived mail-in SARS-CoV-2 gargle tests. We conducted 67 semi-structured in-depth interviews (mean duration: 60 min) via telephone or video call. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively using thematic analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided the findings' presentation.

Results

Respondents generally described gargle sampling as simple and comfortable. However, individual perceptions of the testing method and its feasibility varied widely from disgusting and complicated to simple and brilliant. Self-sampling was appreciated for lowering infection risks during testing, but also considered more complex. Gargle-sampling increased participants' self-efficacy to sample correctly. Communication (first contact, quantity and content of information, reminders, support system) and trust (in the study, its institutional affiliation and test method) decisively influenced the intervention's acceptability.

Conclusion

User-driven insights on how to streamline testing include: consider communication, first impressions of tests and information as key for successful mail-in testing; pay attention to the role of mutual trust between those taking and administering tests; implement gargle self-sampling as a pleasant alternative to swab testing; offer multiple test methods to increase test up-take.

Highly valued despite burdens: Qualitative implementation research on rapid tests for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 screening

Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 have good reliability and have been repeatedly implemented as part of pandemic response policies, especially for screening in high-risk settings (e.g., hospitals and care homes) where fast recognition of an infection is essential. However, evidence from actual implementation efforts and associated experiences is lacking. We conducted a qualitative study at a large tertiary care hospital in Germany to identify step-by-step processes when implementing RDTs for the screening of incoming patients, as well as stakeholders' implementation experiences. We relied on 30 in-depth interviews with hospital staff (members of the regulatory body, department heads, staff working on the wards, staff training providers on how to perform RDTs, and providers performing RDTs as part of the screening) and patients being screened with RDTs. Despite some initial reservations, RDTs were rapidly accepted and adopted as the best available tool for accessible and reliable screening. Decentralized implementation efforts resulted in different procedures being operationalized across departments. Procedures were continuously refined based on initial experiences (e.g., infrastructural or scheduling constraints), pandemic dynamics (growing infection rates), and changing regulations (e.g., screening of all external personnel). To reduce interdepartmental tension, stakeholders recommended high-level, consistently communicated and enforced regulations. Despite challenges, RDT-based screening for all incoming patients was observed to be feasible and acceptable among implementers and patients, and merits continued consideration in the context of high infection and stagnating vaccination rates.

Self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 in São Paulo, Brazil: results of a population-based values and attitudes survey

BACKGROUND

Brazil is among the countries in South America where the COVID-19 pandemic has hit the general population hardest. Self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection is one of the community-based strategies that could help asymptomatic individuals at-risk of COVID-19, as well as those living in areas that are difficult for health personnel to reach, to know their infectious status and contribute to impeding further transmission of the virus.

METHODS

A population-based survey was conducted in November 2021, to assess the acceptability of rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen self-testing among the population of São Paulo. Survey respondents were approached at more than 400 different street-points that were randomly selected using a five-stage randomization process. A 35-item structured questionnaire was used. Dependent variables for our analyses were the likelihood to use and willingness to pay for self-testing, and the likelihood of taking preventive measures to prevent onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 following a reactive self-test result. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 417 respondents (44.12% female) participated; 19.66% had previously had COVID-19 disease. A minority (9.59%) felt at high-risk of COVID-19. The majority of both females and males (73.91% and 60.09%, respectively) were in favor of the idea of SARS-CoV-2 self-testing. Overall, if self-tests were available, almost half of the sample would be very likely (n = 54, 12.95%) or likely (n = 151, 36.21%) to use one if they felt they needed to. Upon receiving a positive self-test result, the majority of respondents would communicate it (88.49%), request facility-based post-test counseling (98.32%), self-isolate (97.60%), and warn their close contacts (96.64%).

CONCLUSION

Rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen self-testing could be an acceptable screening tool in São Paulo. The population would be empowered by having access to a technology that would allow them to test, even if asymptomatic, when traveling, or going to work or school. If there is a surge in the incidence of cases, self-testing could be a good approach for mass case detection by Brazil's already overstretched Unified Health System.

Are Kenyans Likely to Use COVID-19 Self-Testing Kits? Results From a Cross-Sectional Survey

Objectives: To understand the public’s perceptions around rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen self-testing in Kenya, including the drivers of acceptability, willingness to pay, and adherence to hygiene and prevention recommendations following a positive self-test.

Methods: A household-based, cross-sectional survey, using a 35-item questionnaire, was conducted in Mombasa and Taita–Taveta counties, Kenya, during August 2021. Individuals aged ≥18 years were enrolled using a stratified sampling approach.

Results: There were 419 participants (mean age 35.7 years). A minority (10.5%) had ever tested for SARS-CoV-2. If SARS-CoV-2 self-testing were available, 39.9% and 41.5% would be likely and very likely, respectively, to use it. If unavailable free-of-charge, 63.01% would pay for it. Multivariate analyses suggested that people in rural areas (Coefficient 0.30, 95%CI: 0.11–0.48, p = 0.002), aged 36–55 (Coefficient 0.21, 95%CI: 0.03–0.40, p = 0.023), and employed full time (Coefficient 0.32, 95%CI: 0.06–0.58, p = 0.016) would have more odds to adhere to recommended hygiene and prevention actions.

Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 self-testing was considered acceptable. Availability of self-testing could expand access to COVID-19 testing in Kenya, particularly among rural communities who have limited access to testing, and among mildly symptomatic individuals.

Values and preferences of the general population in Indonesia in relation to rapid COVID-19 antigen self-tests: A cross-sectional survey

Objectives

Home diagnostics are essential to assist members of the general population become active agents of case detection. In Indonesia, a country with an over‐burdened healthcare system, individuals could use rapid SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen tests to self‐detect COVID‐19. To assess the general population's values and attitudes towards SARS‐CoV‐2 self‐testing, a survey was conducted in mid‐2021 in Jakarta and the provinces of Banten and North Sulawesi.

Methods

This was a quantitative survey that approached respondents in >600 randomly selected street‐points in the three study geographies in July–August 2021. A 35‐item questionnaire was used to collect data on key variables, such as likelihood to use a SARS‐CoV‐2 self‐test, willingness to pay for a self‐test device, and likely actions following a positive self‐test result. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed.

Results

Of 630 respondents (318 were female), 15.53% knew about COVID‐19 self‐testing, while 62.70% agreed with the idea of people being able to self‐test at home, unassisted, for COVID‐19. If self‐tests were available in Indonesia, >60% of respondents would use them if they felt it necessary and would undertake regular self‐testing for example weekly if recommended. Upon receiving a positive self‐test result, most respondents would communicate it (86.03%), request post‐test counselling (80.79%), self‐isolate (97.46%), and/or warn their close contacts (90.48%).

Conclusions

The use of rapid SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen detection tests for self‐testing appears acceptable to a majority of the Indonesian public, to learn whether they have COVID‐19. Self‐testing should be prioritised to complement to an over‐burdened healthcare system by helping the public, asymptomatic individuals included, become agents of change in epidemiological surveillance of SARS‐CoV‐2 in their communities.

Exploration of the uptake of asymptomatic COVID-19 lateral flow testing in Birmingham, UK: survey and qualitative research

AIM

To examine public perspectives on lateral flow testing (LFT) for COVID-19.

DESIGN

Online survey with nested semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

Birmingham, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

220 Birmingham residents, 21 of whom took part in an interview.

RESULTS

Fifty-six per cent of respondents had taken an LFT. Reasons for not testing included adherence to other government COVID-19 guidance, having had a vaccination and not thinking LFTs were accurate. In 16% of households with children nobody, including children, was testing. In households where children were testing, their parents or other adults were often not. Those who were testing and eligible for workplace and school testing were more likely to be testing twice weekly. In other settings, respondents were more likely to be testing on a one-off or ad hoc basis. Approximately half of respondents said that they were likely to visit friends and family after a negative test result and 10% that they were unlikely to self-isolate following a positive test result. In interviews, participants who were testing described the peace of mind that testing afforded them prior to activities or interactions with family and friends, including those they considered to be vulnerable. Interviewees who were not testing described concerns about test accuracy and also cited a lack of face-to-face interaction with others precluding the need to test. Participants were often testing flexibly according to circumstances and perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

While some choose not to test, others are doing so in order to provide peace of mind to engage in personal interactions they might otherwise have avoided. This peace of mind may be a necessary pre-requisite for some to more fully re-engage in pre-pandemic activities. Despite clear concerns about test accuracy among those not testing, those who are testing held generally positive attitudes towards the continued use of LFTs.

COVID-19 self-testing, a way to "live side by side with the coronavirus": Results from a qualitative study in Indonesia

Alongside mass vaccination for COVID-19, sustainable diagnostic strategies for SARS-CoV-2 are needed to empower local communities and help them complement health authorities' efforts to end the pandemic in low- and middle-income countries. Indonesia is among the nations with an overstretched health system that may benefit from technological innovations, such as rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection tests for self-testing, to detect asymptomatic cases and interrupt the transmission of the virus to healthy individuals. In mid-2021, we conducted a qualitative research study with the aim of understanding key decision-makers' values and preferences regarding the implementation of COVID-19 self-testing in Indonesia. This research received ethics approval from the Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya and used a thematic analysis approach to explore the insights expressed by healthcare workers, representatives of civil society, and potential self-testing implementers in three geographies: Jakarta, Banten, and North Sulawesi. Thirty semi-structured interviews and six focus group discussions were carried out. As per the informants' narratives, the Indonesian public might accept rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection self-testing as a tool that will enable them to test for COVID-19 at their own convenience. Concerns were expressed that the public might doubt the reliability of self-testing kits if these were not properly regulated and if counterfeit kits were known to be on the market. Fear of stigma, isolation, and clinical care costs were perceived to be among the drivers for self-test users to not report a reactive result. These fears might be mitigated, as per the informants' opinions, by awareness raising, passing of regulations, and participatory engagement of a range of community actors, such as village officers. Decision-makers consider rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection self-testing to be a welcomed screening tool that could contribute to ensuring earlier access to treatment and decrease transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Indonesia.