Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Novel Systematic Screening Approach for Tuberculosis among Individuals Suspected or Recovered from COVID-19: Experiences from Niger and Guinea.

Evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacts tuberculosis (TB) activities. As TB and COVID-19 have similar symptoms, we assessed the effectiveness of integrated TB/COVID-19 screening in Guinea and Niger. From May to December 2020, TB screening was offered to symptomatic patients after a negative COVID-19 PCR test or after recovery from COVID-19 in Guinea. From December 2020 to March 2021, all presumptive COVID-19 patients with respiratory symptoms were tested simultaneously for COVID-19 and TB in Niger. We assessed the TB detection yield and used micro-costing to estimate the costs associated with both screening algorithms. A total of 863 individuals (758 in Guinea, and 105 in Niger), who were mostly male (60%) and with a median age of 34 (IQR: 26-45), were screened for TB. Reported symptoms were cough ≥2 weeks (49%), fever (45%), and weight loss (30%). Overall, 61 patients (7%) tested positive for COVID-19 (13 in Guinea, 48 in Niger) and 43 (4.9%) were diagnosed with TB disease (35 or 4.6% in Guinea, and 8 or 7.6% in Niger). The cost per person initiating TB treatment was USD $367 in Guinea and $566 in Niger. Overall, the yield of both approaches was high, and the cost was modest. Optimizing integrated COVID-19/TB screening may support maintaining TB detection during the ongoing pandemic.

Systematic on-site testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection among asymptomatic essential workers in Montréal, Canada: a prospective observational and cost-assessment study.

BACKGROUND: Essential workers are at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to estimate the yield, acceptability and cost of systematic workplace-based testing of asymptomatic essential workers for SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: From Jan. 27 to Mar. 12, 2021, we prospectively recruited non-health care essential businesses in Montréal, Canada, through email or telephone contact. Two trained mobile teams, each composed of 2 non-health care professionals, visited businesses. Consenting asymptomatic employees provided saline gargle samples under supervision. Samples were analyzed by means of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). At businesses with outbreaks (≥ 2 participants with a positive result), we retested all participants with a negative result on initial testing. Our primary outcomes were yield (proportion of test results that were positive), acceptability (proportion of participants estimated to be present at the business who agreed to participate) and costs (including training, sample collection and analysis, and communicating results). Our secondary outcome was identification of factors associated with a positive test result on multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 366 businesses contacted, 69 (18.8%) agreed to participate. Nineteen businesses (28%) were manufacturers or suppliers, 12 (17%) were in auto sales or repair, and 11 (16%) were in childcare; the corresponding number of employees was 1225, 242 and 113. The median number of participants per business was 13 (interquartile range [IQR] 8-22). Of an estimated 2348 employees on site, 2128 (90.6%) participated (808 [38.0%] female, median age 48 [IQR 37-57] yr). Of the 2626 tests performed, 53 (2.0%) gave a positive result. Self-reported nonwhite ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-9.9) and a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result before the study (adjusted OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8) were associated with a positive test result. Five businesses were experiencing an outbreak; at these businesses, 40/917 participants (4.4%) had a positive result on the initial test. We repeated testing for employees with initially negative results at 3 of these businesses over 2-3 weeks: 8/350 participants (2.3%) had a positive result on the second test, and none had a positive result on the third and fourth tests; no employer reported new positive results after our final visit (up to Mar. 26, 2021). At the remaining 64 businesses, 1211 participants were tested once, of whom 5 (0.4%) had a positive result. The per-person RT-PCR cost was $34, and all other costs, $8.67. INTERPRETATION: On-site saline gargle sampling of essential workers for SARS-CoV-2 testing was acceptable and of modest cost, and appears most useful in the context of outbreaks. This sampling strategy should be evaluated further as a component of efforts to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. PREPRINT: medRxiv - doi:10.1101/2021.05.12.21256956.

Adequacy of Serial Self-performed SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Testing for Longitudinal Mass Screening in the Workplace.

Importance: Longitudinal mass testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) for serial screening of asymptomatic persons has been proposed for preventing SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. The feasibility of this strategy relies on accurate self-testing. Objective: To quantify the adequacy of serial self-performed SARS-CoV-2 RADT testing in the workplace, in terms of the frequency of correct execution of procedural steps and accurate interpretation of the range of possible RADT results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective repeated cross-sectional study was performed from July to October 2021 at businesses with at least 2 active cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Montreal, Canada. Participants included untrained persons in their workplace, not meeting Public Health quarantine criteria (ie, required quarantine for 10 days after a moderate-risk contact with someone infected with SARS-CoV-2). Interpretation and performance were compared between participants who received instructions provided by the manufacturer vs those who received modified instructions that were informed by the most frequent or most critical errors we observed. Data were analyzed from October to November 2021. Exposures: RADT testing using a modified quick reference guide compared with the original manufacturer's instructions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the difference in correctly interpreted RADT results. Secondary outcomes included difference in proportions of correctly performed procedural steps. Additional analyses, assessed among participants with 2 self-testing visits, compared the second self-test visit with the first self-test visit using the same measures. Results: Overall, 1892 tests were performed among 647 participants, of whom 278 participants (median [IQR] age, 43 [31-55] years; 156 [56.1%] men) had at least 1 self-testing visit. For self-test visit 1, significantly better accuracy in test interpretation was observed among participants using the modified quick reference guide than those using the manufacturer's instructions for reading results that were weak positive (64 of 115 participants [55.6%] vs 20 of 163 participants [12.3%]; difference, 43.3 [95% CI, 33.0-53.8] percentage points), positive (103 of 115 participants [89.6%] vs 84 of 163 participants [51.5%]; difference, 38.1 [95% CI, 28.5-47.5] percentage points), strong positive (219 of 229 participants [95.6%] vs 274 of 326 participants [84.0%]; difference, 11.6 [95% CI, 6.8-16.3] percentage points), and invalid (200 of 229 participants [87.3%] vs 252 of 326 participants [77.3%]; difference, 10.0 [95% CI, 3.8-16.3] percentage points). Use of the modified guide was associated with improvements on self-test visit 2 for results that were weak positive (difference, 15.4 [95% CI, 0.7-30.1] percentage points), positive (difference, 19.0 [95% CI, 7.2-30.9] percentage points), and invalid (difference, 8.0 [95% CI, 0.8-15.4] percentage points). For procedural steps identified as critical for test validity, adherence to procedural testing steps did not differ meaningfully according to instructions provided or reader experience. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of self-performed SARS-CoV-2 RADT in an intended-use setting, a modified quick reference guide was associated with significantly improved accuracy in RADT interpretations.

The Sensitivity and Costs of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal swabs are the primary sampling method used for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but they require a trained health care professional and extensive personal protective equipment. PURPOSE: To determine the difference in sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection between nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva and estimate the incremental cost per additional SARS-CoV-2 infection detected with nasopharyngeal swabs. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were searched from 1 January to 1 November 2020. Cost inputs were from nationally representative sources in Canada and were converted to 2020 U.S. dollars. STUDY SELECTION: Studies including at least 5 paired nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples and reporting diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 detection. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted using standardized forms, and study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2). DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-seven studies with 7332 paired samples were included. Against a reference standard of a positive result on either sample, the sensitivity of saliva was 3.4 percentage points lower (95% CI, 9.9 percentage points lower to 3.1 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva's sensitivity was 1.5 percentage points higher (CI, 7.3 percentage points lower to 10.3 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons without a previous SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, saliva was 7.9 percentage points less (CI, 14.7 percentage points less to 0.8 percentage point more) sensitive. In this subgroup, if testing 100 000 persons with a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 1%, nasopharyngeal swabs would detect 79 more (95% uncertainty interval, 5 fewer to 166 more) persons with SARS-CoV-2 than saliva, but with an incremental cost per additional infection detected of $8093. LIMITATION: The reference standard was imperfect, and saliva collection procedures varied. CONCLUSION: Saliva sampling seems to be a similarly sensitive and less costly alternative that could replace nasopharyngeal swabs for collection of clinical samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity. (PROSPERO: CRD42020203415).

Dépistage actif chez les groupes courant un risque accru de contracter le SRAS-CoV-2 au Canada : coûts et ressources humaines nécessaires.

CONTEXTE: Le dépistage du coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SRAS-CoV-2) est en grande partie passif, ce qui nuit au contrôle de l'épidémie. Nous avons élaboré des stratégies de dépistage actif du SRAS-CoV-2 au moyen d'une amplification en chaîne par polymérase couplée à une transcription inverse (RT-PCR) chez les groupes courant un risque accru de contracter le virus dans les provinces canadiennes. MÉTHODES: Nous avons identifié 5 groupes qui devraient être prioritaires pour le dépistage actif au moyen d'une RTPCR, soit les gens ayant été en contact avec une personne infectée par le SRAS-CoV-2 et ceux qui appartiennent à 4 populations à risque : employés d'hôpitaux, travailleurs en soins de santé communautaires ainsi qu'employés et résidents d'établissements de soins de longue durée, employés d'entreprises essentielles, et élèves et personnel scolaire. Nous avons estimé les coûts, les ressources humaines et la capacité de laboratoire nécessaires au dépistage des membres de ces groupes ou au dépistage sur des échantillons aléatoires aux fins de surveillance. RÉSULTATS: Du 8 au 17 juillet 2020, 41 751 dépistages par RT-PCR étaient réalisés chaque jour en moyenne dans les provinces canadiennes; nous avons estimé que ces tests mobilisaient 5122 employés et coûtaient 2,4 millions de dollars par jour (67,8 millions de dollars par mois). La recherche et le dépistage systématiques des contacts requerraient 1,2 fois plus de personnel et porteraient les coûts mensuels à 78,9 millions de dollars. S'il était réalisé en 1 mois, le dépistage de tous les employés des hôpitaux nécessiterait 1823 travailleurs supplémentaires et coûterait 29,0 millions de dollars. Pour la même période de temps, le dépistage de tous les travailleurs en soins de santé communautaires et de tous les employés et résidents des établissements de soins de longue durée nécessiterait 11 074 employés supplémentaires et coûterait 124,8 millions de dollars, et celui de tous les travailleurs essentiels nécessiterait 25 965 employés supplémentaires et coûterait 321,7 millions de dollars. Enfin, le dépistage sur 6 semaines de la population scolaire nécessiterait 46 368 employés supplémentaires et coûterait 816,0 millions de dollars. Les interventions visant à pallier les inefficacités, comme le dépistage à partir d'échantillons de salive et le regroupement des échantillons, pourraient réduire les coûts de 40 % et les besoins en personnel, de 20 %. Le dépistage de surveillance sur des échantillons de la population autre que les contacts coûterait 5 % des coûts associés à l'adoption d'une approche universelle de dépistage auprès des populations à risque. INTERPRÉTATION: Le dépistage actif des groupes courant un risque accru de contracter le SRAS-CoV-2 semble faisable et favoriserait la réouverture sûre et à grande échelle de l'économie et des écoles. Cette stratégie semble également abordable lorsque comparée aux 169,2 milliards de dollars versés par le gouvernement fédéral dans la lutte contre la pandémie en date de juin 2020.

Proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons and their transmission potential: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the proportion of asymptomatic infection among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive persons and their transmission potential. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv up to 22 June 2020. We included cohorts or cross-sectional studies which systematically tested populations regardless of symptoms for COVID-19, or case series of any size reporting contact investigations of asymptomatic index patients. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality using pre-specified criteria. Only moderate/high quality studies were included. The main outcomes were proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons at testing and through follow-up, and secondary attack rate among close contacts of asymptomatic index patients. A qualitative synthesis was performed. Where appropriate, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis to estimate proportions and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of 6,137 identified studies, 71 underwent quality assessment after full text review, and 28 were high/moderate quality and were included. In two general population studies, the proportion of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection at time of testing was 20% and 75%, respectively; among three studies in contacts it was 8.2% to 50%. In meta-analysis, the proportion (95% CI) of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection in obstetric patients was 95% (45% to 100%) of which 59% (49% to 68%) remained asymptomatic through follow-up; among nursing home residents, the proportion was 54% (42% to 65%) of which 28% (13% to 50%) remained asymptomatic through follow-up. Transmission studies were too heterogenous to meta-analyse. Among five transmission studies, 18 of 96 (18.8%) close contacts exposed to asymptomatic index patients were COVID-19 positive. CONCLUSIONS: Despite study heterogeneity, the proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons appears high and transmission potential seems substantial. To further our understanding, high quality studies in representative general population samples are required.

Active testing of groups at increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 in Canada: costs and human resource needs.

BACKGROUND: Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is largely passive, which impedes epidemic control. We defined active testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for groups at increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 in all Canadian provinces. METHODS: We identified 5 groups who should be prioritized for active RT-PCR testing: contacts of people who are positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 4 at-risk populations - hospital employees, community health care workers and people in long-term care facilities, essential business employees, and schoolchildren and staff. We estimated costs, human resources and laboratory capacity required to test people in each group or to perform surveillance testing in random samples. RESULTS: During July 8-17, 2020, across all provinces in Canada, an average of 41 751 RT-PCR tests were performed daily; we estimated this required 5122 personnel and cost $2.4 million per day ($67.8 million per month). Systematic contact tracing and testing would increase personnel needs 1.2-fold and monthly costs to $78.9 million. Conducted over a month, testing all hospital employees would require 1823 additional personnel, costing $29.0 million; testing all community health care workers and persons in long-term care facilities would require 11 074 additional personnel and cost $124.8 million; and testing all essential employees would cost $321.7 million, requiring 25 965 added personnel. Testing the larger population within schools over 6 weeks would require 46 368 added personnel and cost $816.0 million. Interventions addressing inefficiencies, including saliva-based sampling and pooling samples, could reduce costs by 40% and personnel by 20%. Surveillance testing in population samples other than contacts would cost 5% of the cost of a universal approach to testing at-risk populations. INTERPRETATION: Active testing of groups at increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 appears feasible and would support the safe reopening of the economy and schools more broadly. This strategy also appears affordable compared with the $169.2 billion committed by the federal government as a response to the pandemic as of June 2020.

Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND DATA ANALYSIS: Eligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset. RESULTS: 5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%). CONCLUSION: Higher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020179452.