Prospective validation of the 4C prognostic models for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

PURPOSE: To prospectively validate two risk scores to predict mortality (4C Mortality) and in-hospital deterioration (4C Deterioration) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study of adults (age ≥18 years) with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 recruited into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study in 306 hospitals across England, Scotland and Wales. Patients were recruited between 27 August 2020 and 17 February 2021, with at least 4 weeks follow-up before final data extraction. The main outcome measures were discrimination and calibration of models for in-hospital deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) and mortality, incorporating predefined subgroups. RESULTS: 76 588 participants were included, of whom 27 352 (37.4%) deteriorated and 12 581 (17.4%) died. Both the 4C Mortality (0.78 (0.77 to 0.78)) and 4C Deterioration scores (pooled C-statistic 0.76 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.77)) demonstrated consistent discrimination across all nine National Health Service regions, with similar performance metrics to the original validation cohorts. Calibration remained stable (4C Mortality: pooled slope 1.09, pooled calibration-in-the-large 0.12; 4C Deterioration: 1.00, -0.04), with no need for temporal recalibration during the second UK pandemic wave of hospital admissions. CONCLUSION: Both 4C risk stratification models demonstrate consistent performance to predict clinical deterioration and mortality in a large prospective second wave validation cohort of UK patients. Despite recent advances in the treatment and management of adults hospitalised with COVID-19, both scores can continue to inform clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66726260.

Rapid antigen testing in COVID-19 management for school-aged children: an observational study in Cheshire and Merseyside, UK.

BACKGROUND: Twice weekly lateral flow tests (LFTs) for secondary school children was UK Government policy from 8 March 2021. We evaluate use of LFTs (both supervised at test centres, and home test kits) in school-aged children in Cheshire and Merseyside. METHODS: We report (i) number of LFT positives (ii) proportion of LFT positive with confirmatory reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test within 2 days, and (iii) agreement between LFT-positive and confirmatory PCR, and dependence of (i-iii) on COVID-19 prevalence. FINDINGS: 1 248 468 LFTs were taken by 211 255 12-18 years old, and 163 914 by 52 116 5-11 years old between 6 November 2020 and 31 July 2021. Five thousand three hundred and fourteen (2.5%) 12-18 years old and 1996 (3.8%) 5-11 years old returned LFT positives, with 3829 (72.1%) and 1535 (76.9%) confirmatory PCRs, and 3357 (87.7%) and 1383 (90.1%) confirmatory PCR-positives, respectively.Monthly proportions of LFT positive with PCR negative varied between 4.7% and 35.3% in 12-18 years old (corresponding proportion of all tests positive: 9.7% and 0.3%).Deprivation and non-White ethnicity were associated with reduced uptake of confirmatory PCR. INTERPRETATION: Substantial inequalities in confirmatory testing need more attention to avoid further disadvantage through education loss. When prevalence is low additional measures, including confirmatory testing, are needed. Local Directors of Public Health taking more control over schools testing may be needed. FUNDING: DHSC, MRC, NIHR, EPSRC.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 viral load distributions with individual demographics and suspected variant type: results from the Liverpool community testing pilot, England, 6 November 2020 to 8 September 2021.

BackgroundThe PCR quantification cycle (Cq) is a proxy measure of the viral load of a SARS-CoV-2-infected individual.AimTo investigate if Cq values vary according to different population characteristics, in particular demographic ones, and within the COVID-19 pandemic context, notably the SARS-CoV-2 type/variant individuals get infected with.MethodsWe considered all positive PCR results from Cheshire and Merseyside, England, between 6 November 2020 and 8 September 2021. Cq distributions were inspected with Kernel density estimates. Multivariable quantile regression models assessed associations between people's features and Cq.ResultsWe report Cq values for 188,821 SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. Median Cqs increased with decreasing age for suspected wild-type virus and Alpha variant infections, but less so, if not, for Delta. For example, compared to 30-39-year-olds (median age group), 5-11-year-olds exhibited 1.8 (95% CI: 1.5 to 2.1), 2.2 (95% CI: 1.8 to 2.6) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.9) higher median Cqs for suspected wild-type, Alpha and Delta positives, respectively, in multivariable analysis. 12-18-year-olds also had higher Cqs for wild-type and Alpha positives, however, not for Delta. Overall, in univariable analysis, suspected Delta positives reported 2.8 lower median Cqs than wild-type positives (95% CI: 2.7 to 2.8; p < 0.001). Suspected Alpha positives had 1.5 (95% CI: 1.4 to 1.5; p < 0.001) lower median Cqs than wild type.ConclusionsWild-type- or Alpha-infected school-aged children (5-11-year-olds) might transmit less than adults (> 18 years old), but have greater mixing exposures. Smaller differences in viral loads with age occurred in suspected Delta infections. Suspected-Alpha- or Delta-infections involved higher viral loads than wild type, suggesting increased transmission risk. COVID-19 control strategies should consider age and dominant variant.

Impact of community asymptomatic rapid antigen testing on covid-19 related hospital admissions: synthetic control study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of voluntary rapid testing for SARS-CoV-2 antigen in Liverpool city on covid-19 related hospital admissions. DESIGN: Synthetic control analysis comparing hospital admissions for small areas in the intervention population with a group of control areas weighted to be similar for past covid-19 related hospital admission rates and sociodemographic factors. SETTING: Liverpool city, UK, 6 November 2020 to 2 January 2021, under the intervention of Covid-SMART (systematic meaningful asymptomatic repeated testing) voluntary, open access supervised self-testing with lateral flow devices, compared with control areas selected from the rest of England. POPULATION: General population of Liverpool (n=498 042) and a synthetic control population from the rest of England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Weekly covid-19 related hospital admissions for neighbourhoods in England. RESULTS: The introduction of community testing was associated with a 43% (95% confidence interval 29% to 57%) reduction (146 (96 to 192) in total) in covid-19 related hospital admissions in Liverpool compared with the synthetic control population (non-adjacent set of neighbourhoods with aggregate trends in covid-19 hospital admissions similar to Liverpool) for the initial period of intensive testing with military assistance in national lockdown from 6 November to 3 December 2020. A 25% (11% to 35%) reduction (239 (104 to 333) in total) was estimated across the overall intervention period (6 November 2020 to 2 January 2021), involving fewer testing centres, before England's national roll-out of community testing, after adjusting for regional differences in tiers of covid-19 restrictions from 3 December 2020 to 2 January 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The city-wide pilot of community based asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with substantially reduced covid-19 related hospital admissions. Large scale asymptomatic rapid testing for SARS-CoV-2 could help reduce transmission and prevent hospital admissions.

Changing patterns of SARS-CoV-2 infection through Delta and Omicron waves by vaccination status, previous infection and neighbourhood deprivation: a cohort analysis of 2.7 M people.

BACKGROUND: Our study examines if SARS-CoV-2 infections varied by vaccination status, if an individual had previously tested positive and by neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation across the Delta and Omicron epidemic waves of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Population cohort study using electronic health records for 2.7 M residents in Cheshire and Merseyside, England (3rd June 2021 to 1st March 2022). Our outcome variable was registered positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Explanatory variables were vaccination status, previous registered positive test and neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation. Cox regression models were used to analyse associations. RESULTS: Originally higher SARS-CoV-2 rates in the most socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods changed to being higher in the least deprived neighbourhoods from the 1st September 2021, and were inconsistent during the Omicron wave. Individuals who were fully vaccinated (two doses) were associated with fewer registered positive tests (e.g., individuals engaged in testing between 1st September and 27th November 2021-Hazards Ratio (HR) = 0.48, 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) = 0.47-0.50. Individuals with a previous registered positive test were also less likely to have a registered positive test (e.g., individuals engaged in testing between 1st September and 27th November 2021-HR = 0.16, 95% CIs = 0.15-0.18. However, the Omicron period saw smaller effect sizes for both vaccination status and previous registered positive test. CONCLUSIONS: Changing patterns of SARS-CoV-2 infections during the Delta and Omicron waves reveals a dynamic pandemic that continues to affect diverse communities in sometimes unexpected ways.

Daily testing of contacts of SARS-CoV-2 infected cases as an alternative to quarantine for key workers in Liverpool: A prospective cohort study.

Background: Covid-19 test-to-release from quarantine policies affect many lives. The SMART Release pilot was the foundation of these policies and an element of the world's largest population cohort study of community-wide, SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing. The objective of the study was to evaluate daily lateral flow testing (LFT) as an alternative to 10-14 days quarantine for key worker contacts of known Covid-19 (or SARS-CoV-2 infection) cases. Methods: Prospective cohort study incorporating quantitative and qualitative research methods to consider how serial LFT compares with PCR testing to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections and to understand experiences/compliance with testing and the viability of this quarantine harm-reduction strategy. Participants were residents of the Liverpool area who were key workers at participating fire, police, NHS and local government organisations in Liverpool, and who were identified as close contacts of cases between December 2020 and August 2021. Thematic qualitative analysis was used to evaluate stakeholder meetings. Findings: Compliance with the daily testing regime was good across the three main organisations in this study with 96·9%, 93·7% and 92·8% compliance for Merseyside Police, Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service and Alder Hey Children's Hospital respectively. Out of 1657 participants, 34 positive Covid-19 cases were identified and 3 undetected by the daily LFT regime. A total of 8291 workdays would have been lost to self-isolation but were prevented due to negative daily tests. Organisations reported that daily contact testing proved useful, flexible and well-tolerated initiative to sustain key worker services. Interpretation: Compliance with daily testing among key workers was high, helping sustain service continuity during periods of very high risk of staffing shortage. Services reported that the pilot was a "lifeline" and its successful delivery in Liverpool has been replicated elsewhere. Funding: This report is independent research commissioned by DHSC and part funded by DHSC and NIHR. Further funding was received from Liverpool City Council, the EPSRC and MRC.

Evaluating the impacts of tiered restrictions introduced in England, during October and December 2020 on COVID-19 cases: a synthetic control study.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission of tier 3 restrictions introduced in October and December 2020 in England, compared with tier 2 restrictions. We further investigate whether these effects varied between small areas by deprivation. DESIGN: Synthetic control analysis. SETTING: We identified areas introducing tier 3 restrictions in October and December, constructed a synthetic control group of places under tier 2 restrictions and compared changes in weekly infections over a 4-week period. Using interaction analysis, we estimated whether this effect varied by deprivation and the prevalence of a new variant (B.1.1.7). INTERVENTIONS: In both October and December, no indoor between-household mixing was permitted in either tier 2 or 3. In October, no between-household mixing was permitted in private gardens and pubs and restaurants remained open only if they served a 'substantial meal' in tier 3, while in tier 2 meeting with up to six people in private gardens were allowed and all pubs and restaurants remained open. In December, in tier 3, pubs and restaurants were closed, while in tier 2, only those serving food remained open. The differences in restrictions between tier 2 and 3 on meeting outside remained the same as in October. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Weekly reported cases adjusted for changing case detection rates for neighbourhoods in England. RESULTS: Introducing tier 3 restrictions in October and December was associated with a 14% (95% CI 10% to 19%) and 20% (95% CI 13% to 29%) reduction in infections, respectively, compared with the rates expected with tier 2 restrictions only. The effects were similar across levels of deprivation and by the prevalence of the new variant. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tier 2 restrictions, additional restrictions in tier 3 areas in England had a moderate effect on transmission, which did not appear to increase socioeconomic inequalities in COVID-19 cases.

Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines for reducing susceptibility to infection with the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: From January to May 2021 the alpha variant (B.1.1.7) of SARS-CoV-2 was the most commonly detected variant in the UK. Following this, the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) then became the predominant variant. The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme started on 8th December 2020. Prior to the Delta variant, most vaccine effectiveness studies focused on the alpha variant. We therefore aimed to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infection with respect to the Delta variant in a UK setting. METHODS: We used anonymised public health record data linked to infection data (PCR) using the Combined Intelligence for Population Health Action resource. We then constructed an SIR epidemic model to explain SARS-CoV-2 infection data across the Cheshire and Merseyside region of the UK. Vaccines were assumed to be effective after 21 days for 1 dose and 14 days for 2 doses. RESULTS: We determined that the effectiveness of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in reducing susceptibility to infection is 39% (95% credible interval [34, 43]) and 64% (95% credible interval [61, 67]) for a single dose and a double dose respectively. For the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the effectiveness is 20% (95% credible interval [10, 28]) and 84% (95% credible interval [82, 86]) for a single-dose and a double dose respectively. CONCLUSION: Vaccine effectiveness for reducing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection shows noticeable improvement after receiving two doses of either vaccine. Findings also suggest that a full course of the Pfizer-BioNTech provides the optimal protection against infection with the Delta variant. This reinforces the need to complete the full course programme to maximise individual protection and reduce transmission.

Recalibrating SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Lateral Flow Test Relative Sensitivity from Validation Studies to Absolute Sensitivity for Indicating Individuals Shedding Transmissible Virus.

Testing for SARS-CoV-2 internationally has focused on COVID-19 diagnosis among symptomatic individuals using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Recently, however, SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow tests (LFT) have been rolled out in several countries for testing asymptomatic individuals in public health programmes. Validation studies for LFT have been largely cross-sectional, reporting sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of LFT relative to PCR. However, because PCR detects genetic material left behind for a long period when the individual is no longer infectious, these statistics can under-represent the sensitivity of LFT for detecting infectious individuals, especially when sampling asymptomatic populations. LFTs (intended to detect individuals shedding SARS-CoV-2 antigens) validated against PCR (intended to diagnose infection) are not reporting against a gold standard of equivalent measurements. Instead, these validation studies have reported relative performance statistics that need recalibrating to the purpose for which LFT is being used. We present an approach to this recalibration. We derive a formula for recalibrating relative performance statistics from LFT vs PCR validation studies to give likely absolute sensitivity of LFT for detecting individuals who are shedding shedding SARS-CoV-2 antigens. We contrast widely reported apparent sensitivities of LFT with recalibrated absolute sensitivity for detecting individuals shedding SARS-CoV-2 antigens. After accounting for within-individual viral kinetics and epidemic dynamics within asymptomatic populations we show that a highly performant test for SARS-CoV-2 antigen should show LFT-to-PCR relative sensitivity of less than 50% in conventional validation studies, which after re-calibration would be an absolute sensitivity of more than 80%. Further studies are needed to ascertain the absolute sensitivity of LFT as a test of infectiousness in COVID-19 responses. These studies should include longitudinal series of LFT and PCR, ideally in cohorts sampled from both contacts of cases and the general population.

Evaluation of the impact of tiered restrictions introduced in England during October and December, 2020, on COVID-19 cases: a synthetic control study

Background In 2020, a second wave of COVID-19 cases unevenly affected places in England, and different levels of tiered restrictions were introduced in different parts of the country. Previous research has examined the impact of national lockdowns on transmission. We aimed to examine the differences in the effect of localised restrictions on COVID-19 cases and how these differences varied by deprivation. Methods We examined the transmission impact of tier 3 restrictions using data on weekly reported COVID-19 cases, adjusted for case-detection rates for 7201 neighbourhoods in England. We identified areas that entered tier 3 restrictions in October and December, 2020, constructed a synthetic control group of places under tier 2 restrictions, and compared changes in weekly infections over a 4-week period. Sufficiently granular data on deaths were not available to investigate excess mortality. We analysed whether this effect varied by level of deprivation and the prevalence of a new variant (B.1.1.7), by stratifying the synthetic control weighting by subgroups and then including an interaction term between subgroup and intervention in the regression model. We used the English Indices of Multiple Deprivation and its tertiles in the stratification to measure deprivation. We tested the spatial spillover effects excluding tier 2 areas within 20 km of tier 3 areas. Ethics approval was not needed. Findings The introduction of tier 3 restrictions was associated with a reduction in infections of 14% (95% CI 10–19) in October and of 20% (13–29) in December, or with a reduction in absolute number of total infections of 3536 (95% CI 2880–4192) in October and of 92 732 (49 776–135 688) in December, compared with what would have been expected under tier 2 restrictions. The effects were similar across levels of deprivation and by the prevalence of the new variant. We found smaller effects with high non-significant p values when excluding boundary areas. Interpretation Compared to tier 2 restrictions, restrictions on hospitality and meeting outdoors in tier 3 areas had a moderate effect on transmission and these restrictions did not appear to increase inequalities in COVID-19 cases. Limitations include a lack of specificity as to which of the main restrictions contributed to this effect, potentially biases from the crude measure of case-detection rates applied, and the lack of controls for individual or household characteristics in this ecological analysis. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Estrogen and COVID-19 symptoms: Associations in women from the COVID Symptom Study.

It has been widely observed that adult men of all ages are at higher risk of developing serious complications from COVID-19 when compared with women. This study aimed to investigate the association of COVID-19 positivity and severity with estrogen exposure in women, in a population based matched cohort study of female users of the COVID Symptom Study application in the UK. Analyses included 152,637 women for menopausal status, 295,689 women for exogenous estrogen intake in the form of the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP), and 151,193 menopausal women for hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Data were collected using the COVID Symptom Study in May-June 2020. Analyses investigated associations between predicted or tested COVID-19 status and menopausal status, COCP use, and HRT use, adjusting for age, smoking and BMI, with follow-up age sensitivity analysis, and validation in a subset of participants from the TwinsUK cohort. Menopausal women had higher rates of predicted COVID-19 (P = 0.003). COCP-users had lower rates of predicted COVID-19 (P = 8.03E-05), with reduction in hospital attendance (P = 0.023). Menopausal women using HRT or hormonal therapies did not exhibit consistent associations, including increased rates of predicted COVID-19 (P = 2.22E-05) for HRT users alone. The findings support a protective effect of estrogen exposure on COVID-19, based on positive association between predicted COVID-19 with menopausal status, and negative association with COCP use. HRT use was positively associated with COVID-19, but the results should be considered with caution due to lack of data on HRT type, route of administration, duration of treatment, and potential unaccounted for confounders and comorbidities.

Evaluating social and spatial inequalities of large scale rapid lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in COVID-19 management: an observational study of Liverpool, UK (November 2020 to January 2021)

BackgroundAsymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 poses a significant burden on managing the spread of COVID-19. Few studies have evaluated the impact of testing for asymptomatic COVID-19 among large populations or whole cities using empirical data. No study to our knowledge has considered if such interventions result in or exacerbate existing socioeconomic inequalities. The aim of our study is to explore social and spatial inequalities in uptake and case-detection of rapid lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (LFTs) offered to people without symptoms of COVID-19 in Liverpool between 6th November 2020 and 31st January 2021.MethodsLinked pseudonymised records for asymptomatic residents in Liverpool (UK) who received a LFT for COVID-19 between 6th November 2020 to 31st January 2021 were accessed using the Combined Intelligence for Population Health Action (CIPHA) data resource. Bayesian Hierarchical Poisson Besag, York, and Mollié models were used to estimate ecological associations for uptake and positivity of testing.Results214 525 residents (43%) received a LFT identifying 5557 individuals as positive cases of COVID-19 (1.3%). Uptake was highest in November when there was military assistance. High uptake was observed again in the week preceding Christmas and was sustained into a national lockdown. Overall uptake and repeat testing were lower among males (e.g. 40% uptake over the whole period), Black Asian and other Minority Ethnic groups (e.g. 27% uptake for ‘Mixed’ ethnicity) and in the most deprived areas (e.g. 32% uptake in most deprived areas). These population groups were also more likely to have received positive tests for COVID-19. Models demonstrated that uptake and repeat testing were lower in areas of higher deprivation, areas located further from test sites and areas containing populations less confident in the using Internet technologies. Positive tests were spatially clustered in deprived areas.ConclusionOur study provides the first substantial evidence on inequalities involved in large-scale asymptomatic rapid testing of populations for SARS-CoV-2. Large-scale voluntary asymptomatic community testing saw social, ethnic, and spatial inequalities in an ‘inverse care’ pattern, but with an added digital exclusion factor. While test uptake was popular, there was a disconnect between the populations accessing testing and those experiencing harms relating to COVID-19. COVID-19 testing and support to isolate need to be more accessible to the vulnerable communities most impacted by the pandemic, including non-digital means of access.

Evaluating the impacts of tiered restrictions introduced in England, during October and December 2020 on COVID-19 cases: a synthetic control study*

BackgroundIn 2020, a second wave of COVID-19 cases unevenly affected places in England leading to the introduction of a tiered system of controls with different geographical areas subject to different levels of restrictions. Whilst previous research has examined the impact of national lockdowns on transmission, there has been limited research examining the marginal effect of differences in localised restrictions or how these effects vary between socioeconomic contexts. We therefore examined how Tier 3 restrictions in England implemented between October-December 2020, which included additional restrictions on the hospitality sector and people meeting outdoors affected COVID-19 case rates, compared to Tier 2 restrictions, and how these effects varied by level of deprivation.MethodsWe used data on weekly reported COVID-19 cases for 7201 neighbourhoods in England and adjusted these for changing case-detection rates to provide an estimate of weekly SARS-CoV-2 infections in each neighbourhood. We identified those areas that entered Tier 3 restrictions at two time points in October and December, and constructed a synthetic control group of similar places that had entered Tier 2 restrictions, using calibration weights to match them on a wide range of covariates that may influence transmission. We then compared the change in weekly infections between those entering Tier 3 to the synthetic control group to estimate the proportional reduction of cases resulting from Tier 3 restrictions compared to Tier 2 restrictions, over a 4-week period. We further used interaction analysis to estimate whether this effect differed based on the level of socioeconomic deprivation in each neighbourhood and whether effects were modified by the prevalence of a new more infectious variant of SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.1.7) in each area.ResultsThe introduction of Tier 3 restrictions in October and December was associated with a 14% (95% CI 10% to 19%) and 20% (95% CI 13% to 29%) reduction in infections respectively, compared to the rates expected if only Tier 2 restrictions had been in place in those areas. We found that effects were similar across levels of deprivation and limited evidence that Tier 3 restrictions had a greater effect in areas where the new more infectious variant was more prevalent.DiscussionCompared to Tier 2 restrictions, additional restrictions on hospitality and meeting outdoors introduced in Tier 3 areas in England had a moderate effect on transmission and these restrictions did not appear to increase inequalities.

Enhanced lateral flow testing strategies in care homes are associated with poor adherence and were insufficient to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks: results from a mixed methods implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: Care homes have been severely affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Rapid antigen testing could identify most SARS-CoV-2 infected staff and visitors before they enter homes. We explored implementation of staff and visitor testing protocols using lateral flow devices (LFDs). METHODS: An evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 LFD-based testing protocol in 11 care homes in Liverpool, UK, including staff and visitor testing, plus a qualitative exploratory study in nine of these homes. The proportion of pilot homes with outbreaks, and outbreak size, were compared to non-pilot homes in Liverpool. Adherence to testing protocols was evaluated. Fifteen staff were interviewed, and transcript data were thematically coded using an iterative analysis to identify and categorize factors influencing testing implementation. RESULTS: In total, 1,638 LFD rapid tests were performed on 407 staff. Protocol adherence was poor with 8.6% of staff achieving >75% protocol adherence, and 25.3% achieving $\ge$50%. Six care homes had outbreaks during the study. Compared to non-pilot care homes, there was no evidence of significant difference in the proportion of homes with outbreaks, or the size of outbreaks. Qualitative data showed difficulty implementing testing strategies due to excessive work burden. Factors influencing adherence related to test integration and procedural factors, socio-economic factors, cognitive overload and the emotional value of testing. CONCLUSION: Implementation of staff and visitor care home LFD testing protocols was poorly adhered to and consequently did not reduce the number or scale of COVID-19 outbreaks. More focus is needed on the contextual and behavioural factors that influence protocol adherence.

Performance of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test in the Liverpool asymptomatic testing pilot: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test (LFT) versus polymerase chain reaction testing in the asymptomatic general population attending testing centres. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Community LFT pilot at covid-19 testing sites in Liverpool, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 5869 asymptomatic adults (≥18 years) voluntarily attending one of 48 testing sites during 6-29 November 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were tested using both an Innova LFT and a quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test based on supervised self-administered swabbing at testing sites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of LFT compared with RT-qPCR in an epidemic steady state of covid-19 among adults with no classic symptoms of the disease. RESULTS: Of 5869 test results, 22 (0.4%) LFT results and 343 (5.8%) RT-qPCR results were void (that is, when the control line fails to appear within 30 minutes). Excluding the void results, the LFT versus RT-qPCR showed a sensitivity of 40.0% (95% confidence interval 28.5% to 52.4%; 28/70), specificity of 99.9% (99.8% to 99.99%; 5431/5434), positive predictive value of 90.3% (74.2% to 98.0%; 28/31), and negative predictive value of 99.2% (99.0% to 99.4%; 5431/5473). When the void samples were assumed to be negative, a sensitivity was observed for LFT of 37.8% (26.8% to 49.9%; 28/74), specificity of 99.6% (99.4% to 99.8%; 5431/5452), positive predictive value of 84.8% (68.1% to 94.9%; 28/33), and negative predictive value of 93.4% (92.7% to 94.0%; 5431/5814). The sensitivity in participants with an RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) of <18.3 (approximate viral loads >106 RNA copies/mL) was 90.9% (58.7% to 99.8%; 10/11), a Ct of <24.4 (>104 RNA copies/mL) was 69.4% (51.9% to 83.7%; 25/36), and a Ct of >24.4 (<104 RNA copies/mL) was 9.7% (1.9% to 23.7%; 3/34). LFT is likely to detect at least three fifths and at most 998 in every 1000 people with a positive RT-qPCR test result with high viral load. CONCLUSIONS: The Innova LFT can be useful for identifying infections among adults who report no symptoms of covid-19, particularly those with high viral load who are more likely to infect others. The number of asymptomatic adults with lower Ct (indicating higher viral load) missed by LFT, although small, should be considered when using single LFT in high consequence settings. Clear and accurate communication with the public about how to interpret test results is important, given the chance of missing some cases, even at high viral loads. Further research is needed to understand how infectiousness is reflected in the viral antigen shedding detected by LFT versus the viral loads approximated by RT-qPCR.