Effective screening strategies for safe opening of universities under Omicron and Delta variants of COVID-19.

As new COVID-19 variants emerge, and disease and population characteristics change, screening strategies may also need to change. We develop a decision-making model that can assist a college to determine an optimal screening strategy based on their characteristics and resources, considering COVID-19 infections/hospitalizations/deaths; peak daily hospitalizations; and the tests required. We also use this tool to generate screening guidelines for the safe opening of college campuses. Our compartmental model simulates disease spread on a hypothetical college campus under co-circulating variants with different disease dynamics, considering: (i) the heterogeneity in disease transmission and outcomes for faculty/staff and students based on vaccination status and level of natural immunity; and (ii) variant- and dose-dependent vaccine efficacy. Using the Spring 2022 academic semester as a case study, we study routine screening strategies, and find that screening the faculty/staff less frequently than the students, and/or the boosted and vaccinated less frequently than the unvaccinated, may avert a higher number of infections per test, compared to universal screening of the entire population at a common frequency. We also discuss key policy issues, including the need to revisit the mitigation objective over time, effective strategies that are informed by booster coverage, and if and when screening alone can compensate for low booster coverage.

Benefits of integrated screening and vaccination for infection control.

IMPORTANCE: Screening and vaccination are essential in the fight against infectious diseases, but need to be integrated and customized based on community and disease characteristics. OBJECTIVE: To develop effective screening and vaccination strategies, customized for a college campus, to reduce COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, deaths, and peak hospitalizations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We construct a compartmental model of disease spread under vaccination and routine screening, and study the efficacy of four mitigation strategies (routine screening only, vaccination only, vaccination with partial or full routine screening), and a no-intervention strategy. The study setting is a hypothetical college campus of 5,000 students and 455 faculty members during the Fall 2021 academic semester, when the Delta variant was the predominant strain. For sensitivity analysis, we vary the screening frequency, daily vaccination rate, initial vaccine coverage, and screening and vaccination compliance; and consider scenarios that represent low/medium/high transmission and test efficacy. Model parameters come from publicly available or published sources. RESULTS: With low initial vaccine coverage (30% in our study), even aggressive vaccination and screening result in a high number of infections: 1,020 to 2,040 (1,530 to 2,480) with routine daily (every other day) screening of the unvaccinated; 280 to 900 with daily screening extended to the newly vaccinated in base- and worst-case scenarios, which respectively consider reproduction numbers of 4.75 and 6.75 for the Delta variant. CONCLUSION: Integrated vaccination and routine screening can allow for a safe opening of a college when both the vaccine effectiveness and the initial vaccine coverage are sufficiently high. The interventions need to be customized considering the initial vaccine coverage, estimated compliance, screening and vaccination capacity, disease transmission and adverse outcome rates, and the number of infections/peak hospitalizations the college is willing to tolerate.

Screening multi-dimensional heterogeneous populations for infectious diseases under scarce testing resources, with application to COVID-19

Abstract Testing provides essential information for managing infectious disease outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When testing resources are scarce, an important managerial decision is who to test. This decision is compounded by the fact that potential testing subjects are heterogeneous in multiple dimensions that are important to consider, including their likelihood of being disease-positive, and how much potential harm would be averted through testing and the subsequent interventions. To increase testing coverage, pooled testing can be utilized, but this comes at a cost of increased false-negatives when the test is imperfect. Then, the decision problem is to partition the heterogeneous testing population into three mutually exclusive sets: those to be individually tested, those to be pool tested, and those not to be tested. Additionally, the subjects to be pool tested must be further partitioned into testing pools, potentially containing different numbers of subjects. The objectives include the minimization of harm (through detection and mitigation) or maximization of testing coverage. We develop data-driven optimization models and algorithms to design pooled testing strategies, and show, via a COVID-19 contact tracing case study, that the proposed testing strategies can substantially outperform the current practice used for COVID-19 contact tracing (individually testing those contacts with symptoms). Our results demonstrate the substantial benefits of optimizing the testing design, while considering the multiple dimensions of population heterogeneity and the limited testing capacity.

A robust pooled testing approach to expand COVID-19 screening capacity.

Limited testing capacity for COVID-19 has hampered the pandemic response. Pooling is a testing method wherein samples from specimens (e.g., swabs) from multiple subjects are combined into a pool and screened with a single test. If the pool tests positive, then new samples from the collected specimens are individually tested, while if the pool tests negative, the subjects are classified as negative for the disease. Pooling can substantially expand COVID-19 testing capacity and throughput, without requiring additional resources. We develop a mathematical model to determine the best pool size for different risk groups, based on each group's estimated COVID-19 prevalence. Our approach takes into consideration the sensitivity and specificity of the test, and a dynamic and uncertain prevalence, and provides a robust pool size for each group. For practical relevance, we also develop a companion COVID-19 pooling design tool (through a spread sheet). To demonstrate the potential value of pooling, we study COVID-19 screening using testing data from Iceland for the period, February-28-2020 to June-14-2020, for subjects stratified into high- and low-risk groups. We implement the robust pooling strategy within a sequential framework, which updates pool sizes each week, for each risk group, based on prior week's testing data. Robust pooling reduces the number of tests, over individual testing, by 88.5% to 90.2%, and 54.2% to 61.9%, respectively, for the low-risk and high-risk groups (based on test sensitivity values in the range [0.71, 0.98] as reported in the literature). This results in much shorter times, on average, to get the test results compared to individual testing (due to the higher testing throughput), and also allows for expanded screening to cover more individuals. Thus, robust pooling can potentially be a valuable strategy for COVID-19 screening.