Implementation of rapid and frequent SARS-CoV2 antigen testing and response in congregate homeless shelters

Respiratory Syncytial Virus, Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 in Homeless People from Urban Shelters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2023)

Homeless people (HP) are disproportionally affected by respiratory disorders, including pneumococcal and mycobacterial infections. On the contrary, more limited evidence has been previously gathered on influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and very little is known about the occurrence of human respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a common cause of respiratory tract infections among children and the elderly. The present systematic review was designed to collect available evidence about RSV, influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infections in HP, focusing on those from urban homeless shelters. Three medical databases (PubMed, Embase and Scopus) and the preprint repository medRxiv.org were therefore searched for eligible observational studies published up to 30 December 2023, and the collected cases were pooled in a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics. Reporting bias was assessed by funnel plots and a regression analysis. Overall, 31 studies were retrieved, and of them, 17 reported on the point prevalence of respiratory pathogens, with pooled estimates of 4.91 cases per 1000 HP (95%CI: 2.46 to 9.80) for RSV, 3.47 per 1000 HP for influenza and 40.21 cases per 1000 HP (95%CI: 14.66 to 105.55) for SARS-CoV-2. Incidence estimates were calculated from 12 studies, and SARS-CoV-2 was characterized by the highest occurrence (9.58 diagnoses per 1000 persons-months, 95%CI: 3.00 to 16.16), followed by influenza (6.07, 95%CI: 0.00 to 15.06) and RSV (1.71, 95%CI: 0.00 to 4.13). Only four studies reported on the outcome of viral infections in HP: the assessed pathogens were associated with a high likelihood of hospitalization, while high rates of recurrence and eventual deaths were reported in cases of RSV infections. In summary, RSV, influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infections were documented in HP from urban shelters, and their potential outcomes stress the importance of specifically tailored preventive strategies.

Interventions to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 for people experiencing homelessness and their effectiveness: a systematic review

Objectives

People experiencing homelessness also experience poorer clinical outcomes of COVID-19. Various interventions were implemented for people experiencing homelessness in 2020-2022 in different countries in response to varied national guidance to limit the impact of COVID-19. It is important to understand what was done and the effectiveness of such interventions. This systematic review aims to describe interventions to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 in people experiencing homelessness and their effectiveness.

Methods

A protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO. Nine databases were searched for studies on interventions to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on people experiencing homelessness. Included studies were summarised with narrative synthesis.

Results

From 8,233 references retrieved from the database searches and handsearching, 15 were included. There was a variety of interventions, including early identification of potential COVID-19 infections, provision of isolation space, healthcare support, and urgent provision of housing regardless of COVID-19 infection.

Conclusion

The strategies identified were generally found to be effective, feasible, and transferable. This review must be interpreted with caution due to the low volume of eligible studies and the low quality of the evidence available.

SARS-CoV-2 incidence, seroprevalence, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage in the homeless population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination of homeless people are a serious public health concern during COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to systematically assess SARS-CoV-2 incidence, seroprevalence, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage in homeless people, which are important to inform resource allocation and policy adjustment for the prevention and control of COVID-19.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 database for the studies of SARS-CoV-2 incidence, seroprevalence, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage in the homeless population. Subgroup analyses were conducted to pool SARS-CoV-2 incidence and seroprevalence in sheltered homeless, unsheltered homeless, and mixed population, respectively. Potential sources of heterogeneity in the estimates were explored by meta-regression analysis.

Results

Forty-nine eligible studies with a total of 75,402 homeless individuals and 5,000 shelter staff were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 10% (95% CI: 7 to 12%) in the homeless population and 8% (5 to 12%) for shelter staff. In addition, the overall estimated SARS-CoV-2 specific seroprevalence was 19% (8 to 33%) for homeless populations and 22% (3 to 52%) for shelter staff, respectively. Moreover, for the homeless subjects, the pooled incidence was 10% (4 to 23%) for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, 6% (1 to 12%) for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, 3% (1 to 4%) for hospitalization for COVID-19, and 1% (0 to 2%) for severe COVID-19 cases, respectively while no COVID-19-related death was reported. Furthermore, the data derived from 12 included studies involving 225,448 homeless individuals revealed that the pooled proportion of one dose COVID-19 vaccination was 41% (35 to 47%), which was significantly lower than those in the general population.

Conclusion

Our study results indicate that the homeless people remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower than the general population, underscoring the need for prioritizing vaccine deployment and implementing enhanced preventive measures targeting this vulnerable group.

Access to COVID-19 testing by individuals with housing insecurity during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: a scoping review

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic focused attention on healthcare disparities and inequities faced by individuals within marginalized and structurally disadvantaged groups in the United States. These individuals bore the heaviest burden across this pandemic as they faced increased risk of infection and difficulty in accessing testing and medical care. Individuals experiencing housing insecurity are a particularly vulnerable population given the additional barriers they face. In this scoping review, we identify some of the barriers this high-risk group experienced during the early days of the pandemic and assess novel solutions to overcome these barriers.

Methods

A scoping review was performed following PRISMA-Sc guidelines looking for studies focusing on COVID-19 testing among individuals experiencing housing insecurity. Barriers as well as solutions to barriers were identified as applicable and summarized using qualitative methods, highlighting particular ways that proved effective in facilitating access to testing access and delivery.

Results

Ultimately, 42 studies were included in the scoping review, with 143 barriers grouped into four categories: lack of cultural understanding, systemic racism, and stigma; medical care cost, insurance, and logistics; immigration policies, language, and fear of deportation; and other. Out of these 42 studies, 30 of these studies also suggested solutions to address them.

Conclusion

A paucity of studies have analyzed COVID-19 testing barriers among those experiencing housing insecurity, and this is even more pronounced in terms of solutions to address those barriers. Expanding resources and supporting investigators within this space is necessary to ensure equitable healthcare delivery.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Among People Experiencing Homelessness: A Prospective Cohort and Implementation Study

INTRODUCTION

Detection strategies in vulnerable populations such as people experiencing homelessness (PEH) need to be explored to promptly recognize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks. This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 Ag test in PEH during two pandemic waves compared with gold standard real-time multiplex reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR).

METHODS

All PEH ≥ 18 years requesting residence at the available shelters in Verona, Italy, across two cold-weather emergency periods (November 2020-May 2021 and December 2021-April 2022) were prospectively screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection by means of a naso-pharyingeal swab. A lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (Biocredit^® COVID-19 Ag) was used as antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). The rtRT-PCR was performed with Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay kit (Seegene). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated as measures for diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Overall, 503 participants were enrolled during the two intervention periods for a total of 732 paired swabs collected: 541 swabs in the first period and 191 in the second. No significant differences in demographic and infection-related characteristics were observed in tested subjects in the study periods, except for the rate of previous infection (0.8% versus 8%; p < 0.001) and vaccination (6% versus 73%; p < 0.001). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the cohort was 8% (58/732 swabs positive with rtRT-PCR). Seventeen swabs were collected from symptomatic patients (7%). Among them, the concordance between rtRT-PCR and Ag-RDT was 100%, 7 (41.2%) positive and 10 negative pairs. The overall sensitivity of Ag-RDT was 63.8% (95% CI 60.3-67.3) and specificity was 99.8% (95% CI 99.6-100). PPV and NPV were 97.5% and 96.8%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity did not change substantially across the two periods (65.1% and 99.8% in 2020-2021 vs. 60% and 100% in 2021-2022).

CONCLUSIONS

A periodic Ag-RDT-based screening approach for PEH at point of care could guide preventive measures, including prompt isolation, without referral to hospital-based laboratories for molecular test confirmation in case of positive detection even in individuals asymptomatic for COVID-19. This could help reduce the risk of outbreaks in shelter facilities.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

A Scoping Review of the Health Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Persons Experiencing Homelessness in North America and Europe

Persons experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at heightened risk for infection, morbidity, and mortality from COVID-19. However, health consequences of the pandemic extend far beyond those directly caused by the virus. This scoping review aimed to explore the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and well-being of PEH in North America and Europe. A systematic search of academic and grey literature was conducted in September 2021. To be included, studies had to include primary data related to the impact of the pandemic on health or well-being of PEH and be written in English. All potentially relevant references were independently screened by two reviewers, and minor conflicts were settled with input of a third reviewer. A total of 96 articles met criteria for inclusion. Data extraction was completed for all included studies, and findings synthesised and presented thematically. Numerous health impacts of the pandemic on PEH were identified, including SARS-CoV-2 infection, morbidity, mortality, and hospitalisation, fear of infection, access to housing, hygiene, PPE, food, as well as mental health, substance use, other health-related outcomes and treatment services. Gaps in the literature relating to persons using alcohol, access to mental health support, and violence were also identified. Implications for future research are discussed.