SARS-CoV-2 infection among educational staff in Berlin, Germany, June to December 2020

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 infections in preschool and school settings potentially bear occupational risks to educational staff.AimWe aimed to assess the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in teachers and preschool educators and at identifying factors associated with infection.MethodsWe analysed cross-sectional data derived from 17,448 voluntary, PCR-based screening tests of asymptomatic educational staff in Berlin, Germany, between June and December 2020 using descriptive statistics and a logistic regression model.ResultsParticipants were largely female (73.0%), and median age was 41 years (range: 18-78). Overall, SARS-CoV-2 infection proportion was 1.2% (95% CI: 1.0-1.4). Proportion of positive tests in educational staff largely followed community incidence until the start of the second pandemic wave, when an unsteady plateau was reached. Then, the proportion of positive tests in a (concurrent) population survey was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.6-1.4), 1.2% (95% CI: 0.8-1.8) in teachers and 2.6% (95% CI: 1.6-4.0) in preschool educators. Compared with teachers, increased odds of infection were conferred by being a preschool educator (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.6; 95% CI: 1.3-2.0) and by contact with a SARS-CoV-2 infected individual outside of work (aOR: 3.0; 95% CI: 1.5-5.5). In a step-wise backward selection, the best set of associated factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection involved age, occupation, and calendar week.ConclusionsThese results indicate that preschool educators bear increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with teachers. At the same time, the private environment appeared to be a relevant source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for educational staff in 2020.

Self-collected oral, nasal and saliva samples yield sensitivity comparable to professionally collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis among symptomatic outpatients

Introduction

Containing COVID-19 requires broad-scale testing. However, sample collection requires qualified personnel and protective equipment and may cause transmission. We assessed the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2-rtPCR applying three self-sampling techniques as compared to professionally collected oro-nasopharyngeal samples (cOP/NP).

Methods

From 62 COVID-19 outpatients, we obtained: (i) multi-swab, MS; (ii) saliva sponge combined with nasal vestibula, SN; (iii) gargled water, GW; (iv) professionally collected cOP/NP (standard). We compared ct-values for E-gene and ORF1ab and analysed variables reducing sensitivity of self-collecting procedures.

Results

The median ct-values for E-gene and ORF1ab obtained in cOP/NP samples were 20.7 and 20.2, in MS samples 22.6 and 21.8, in SN samples 23.3 and 22.3, and in GW samples 30.3 and 29.8, respectively. MS and SN samples showed sensitivities of 95.2% (95%CI, 86.5-99.0) and GW samples of 88.7% (78.1-95.3). Sensitivity was inversely correlated with ct-values, and became <90% for samples obtained more than 8 days after symptom onset. For MS and SN samples, false negativity was associated with language problems, sampling errors, and symptom duration.

Conclusion

Conclusions from this study are limited to the sensitivity of self-sampling in mildly to moderately symptomatic patients. Still, self-collected oral/nasal/saliva samples can facilitate up-scaling of testing in early symptomatic COVID-19 patients if operational errors are minimized.

Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 Lineage at Outpatient Testing Site, Berlin, Germany, January-March 2021

Within 5 weeks in 2021, B.1.1.7 became the dominant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 lineage at an outpatient testing site in Berlin, Germany. Compared with outpatients with wild-type virus infection, patients with B.1.1.7 had similar cycle threshold values, more frequent sore throat and travel history, and less frequent anosmia/ageusia.

Accuracy of a Novel SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Test from Standardized Self-Collected Anterior Nasal Swabs

Background Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) offer new opportunities for the quick and laboratory-independent identification of infected individuals for control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Despite the potential benefits, nasopharyngeal sample collection is frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients and requires trained healthcare personnel with protective equipment. Therefore, anterior nasal self-sampling is increasingly recognized as a valuable alternative. Methods We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of an Ag-RDT using a polypropylene absorbent collector for standardized self-collected anterior nasal swabs. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from combined oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swabs served as a comparator. Primary endpoint was sensitivity of the standardized Ag-RDT in symptomatic patients with medium or high viral concentration (≥1 million RNA copies on RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2). Results Between 12 February and 22 March 2021, 388 participants were enrolled. After exclusion of 9 patients for which no PCR result could be obtained, the novel Ag-RDT was evaluated based on 379 participants, of whom 273 were symptomatic and 106 asymptomatic. In 61 samples from symptomatic patients with medium or high viral load (≥1 million RNA copies), the sensitivity of the standardized Ag-RDT was 96.7% (59/61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 88.7–99.6%) for the primary endpoint. In total, 62 positive Ag-RDT results were detected out of 70 RT-PCR positive individuals, yielding an overall sensitivity of 88.6% (95% CI: 78.7–94.9%). Specificity was 99.7% (95% CI: 98.2–100%) in 309 RT-PCR negative individuals. Conclusions Here, we present a validation of a novel Ag-RDT with a standardized sampling process for anterior nasal self-collection, which meets World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, this assay could be beneficial due to its rapid results, ease of use, and suitability for standardized self-testing.