Evaluation of Real-life Use of Point-of-care Rapid Antigen Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Schools (EPOCRATES): a cohort study

Real-world utilisation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing to enable face-to-face learning in Australian schools, an ecological study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe the use of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing of COVID-19 contacts in New South Wales schools to determine return to in-person school attendance instead of home quarantine, between 6 November and 21 December 2021.

METHODS

COVID-19 school contacts were required to quarantine for two weeks postexposure to the case. Students who opted into daily rapid antigen testing logged their results in a database, prior to school attendance, and obtained SARS-CoV-2 nucleic amplification acid testing on day 12-16. Secondary attack rates (SARs) in schools utilising rapid antigen testing (Test-to-Stay schools) and those not utilising rapid antigen testing (non-Test-to-Stay school) were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 9,887 people in 293 schools who reported performing at least one rapid antigen test (RAT). The SAR in RAT schools was 3.4% (95% confidence interval: 2.7-4.1) and non-RAT schools was 2.8% (95% confidence interval: 2.4-3.3). A total of 30,535 school days were preserved through this program.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of RATs preserved in-person learning without a significant increase to SAR.

IMPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

Disruptions in face-to-face learning have long-term detrimental impacts on children and adolescents. Rapid antigen testing has been shown to be beneficial to maintain face-to-face learning in Australian schools and may be a useful method to safeguard from school disruptions in future pandemics.

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.

What is the specific role of schools and daycares in COVID-19 transmission? A final report from a living rapid review

Due to rapidly evolving conditions, the question of how to safely operate schools and daycares remained a top priority throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to growing and changing evidence, the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools in Canada maintained a living rapid review on the role of schools and daycares in COVID-19 transmission to guide evidence-informed decision making. This Review presents the final iteration of this living rapid review. 31 sources were searched until Oct 17, 2022. In the final version, eligible studies reported data from Jan 1, 2021 onward on transmission of COVID-19 in school or daycare settings, the effect of infection prevention and control measures on transmission, or the effect of operating schools or daycares on community-level COVID-19 rates. As a rapid review, titles and abstracts were screened by a single reviewer with artificial intelligence integrated into later versions. Full-text screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were completed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The Johanna Briggs Institute tools were used for critical appraisal. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and results were synthesised narratively. Three citizen partners provided input for the final interpretation. This final update includes 73 primary studies. Secondary attack rates were low within school settings when infection prevention and control measures were in place (moderate certainty). Masks might reduce transmission, test-to-stay policies might not increase transmission risk compared with mandatory quarantine, cohorting and hybrid learning might make little to no difference in transmission (low certainty), and the effect of surveillance testing within schools remained inconclusive (very low certainty). Findings indicate that school settings do not substantially contribute to community incidence, hospitalisations, or mortality (low certainty). This living review provides a synthesis of global evidence for the role of schools and daycares during COVID-19, which might be helpful in future pandemics.

Impact and cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 self-testing strategies in schools: a multicountry modelling analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most epidemiologically effective and cost-effective school-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) self-testing strategies among teachers and students.

DESIGN

Mathematical modelling and economic evaluation.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Simulated school and community populations were parameterised to Brazil, Georgia and Zambia, with SARS-CoV-2 self-testing strategies targeted to teachers and students in primary and secondary schools under varying epidemic conditions.

INTERVENTIONS

SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT self-testing strategies for only teachers or teachers and students-only symptomatically or symptomatically and asymptomatically at 5%, 10%, 40% or 100% of schools at varying frequencies.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes were assessed in terms of total infections and symptomatic days among teachers and students, as well as total infections and deaths within the community under the intervention compared with baseline. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for infections prevented among teachers and students.

RESULTS

With respect to both the reduction in infections and total cost, symptomatic testing of all teachers and students appears to be the most cost-effective strategy. Symptomatic testing can prevent up to 69·3%, 64·5% and 75·5% of school infections in Brazil, Georgia and Zambia, respectively, depending on the epidemic conditions, with additional reductions in community infections. ICERs for symptomatic testing range from US$2 to US$19 per additional school infection averted as compared with symptomatic testing of teachers alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic testing of teachers and students has the potential to cost-effectively reduce a substantial number of school and community infections.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling with molecular and professional-use tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Self-testing is an effective tool to bridge the testing gap for several infectious diseases; however, its performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) has not been systematically reviewed. This study aimed to inform WHO guidelines by evaluating the accuracy of COVID-19 self-testing and self-sampling coupled with professional Ag-RDT conduct and interpretation. Articles on this topic were searched until November 7th, 2022. Concordance between self-testing/self-sampling and fully professional-use Ag-RDTs was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Bivariate meta-analysis yielded pooled performance estimates. Quality and certainty of evidence were evaluated using QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools. Among 43 studies included, twelve reported on self-testing, and 31 assessed self-sampling only. Around 49.6% showed low risk of bias. Overall concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs was high (kappa 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.94]). Comparing self-testing/self-sampling to molecular testing, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.5% (95% CI 64.3-76.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 99.1-99.6), respectively. Higher sensitivity (i.e., 93.6% [95% CI 90.4-96.8] for Ct < 25) was estimated in subgroups with higher viral loads using Ct values as a proxy. Despite high heterogeneity among studies, COVID-19 self-testing/self-sampling exhibits high concordance with professional-use Ag-RDTs. This suggests that self-testing/self-sampling can be offered as part of COVID-19 testing strategies.Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021250706.

Continuous false positive results by SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing: a case report

Efficient and rapid identification of active SARS-CoV-2 infections has been key to monitoring and mitigating the spread of the virus. The implementation of nucleic acid testing (e.g., RT-PCR) was broadly adopted by most public health organizations at the national and community levels across the globe, which was followed by more accessible means of home testing including lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFA), also known as a rapid antigen test. Here we report the case of an adult female who repeatedly and consecutively tested positive by RAT (BTNX inc). This sustained false positive was not linked with an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was ruled out by RT-PCR and serological analyses. SARS-CoV-2 serology revealed no detectable levels of antibodies against the nucleocapsid suggesting no recent prior infection by SARS-CoV-2. This continuous false positive was limited to BTNX testing devices. This case report aims to describe that such continuous false positives can occur and describes alternative testing approaches that can be performed to confirm RAT results. In addition, broader awareness of such occurrences is warranted in the healthcare and public health community to avoid unnecessary negative impacts on individual's day to day life.