Risk factors and vectors for SARS-CoV-2 household transmission: a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite circumstantial evidence for aerosol and fomite spread of SARS-CoV-2, empirical data linking either pathway with transmission are scarce. Here we aimed to assess whether the presence of SARS-CoV-2 on frequently-touched surfaces and residents' hands was a predictor of SARS-CoV-2 household transmission. METHODS: In this longitudinal cohort study, during the pre-alpha (September to December, 2020) and alpha (B.1.1.7; December, 2020, to April, 2021) SARS-CoV-2 variant waves, we prospectively recruited contacts from households exposed to newly diagnosed COVID-19 primary cases, in London, UK. To maximally capture transmission events, contacts were recruited regardless of symptom status and serially tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR on upper respiratory tract (URT) samples and, in a subcohort, by serial serology. Contacts' hands, primary cases' hands, and frequently-touched surface-samples from communal areas were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. SARS-CoV-2 URT isolates from 25 primary case-contact pairs underwent whole-genome sequencing (WGS). FINDINGS: From Aug 1, 2020, until March 31, 2021, 620 contacts of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected primary cases were recruited. 414 household contacts (from 279 households) with available serial URT PCR results were analysed in the full household contacts' cohort, and of those, 134 contacts with available longitudinal serology data and not vaccinated pre-enrolment were analysed in the serology subcohort. Household infection rate was 28·4% (95% CI 20·8-37·5) for pre-alpha-exposed contacts and 51·8% (42·5-61·0) for alpha-exposed contacts (p=0·0047). Primary cases' URT RNA viral load did not correlate with transmission, but was associated with detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on their hands (p=0·031). SARS-CoV-2 detected on primary cases' hands, in turn, predicted contacts' risk of infection (adjusted relative risk [aRR]=1·70 [95% CI 1·24-2·31]), as did SARS-CoV-2 RNA presence on household surfaces (aRR=1·66 [1·09-2·55]) and contacts' hands (aRR=2·06 [1·57-2·69]). In six contacts with an initial negative URT PCR result, hand-swab (n=3) and household surface-swab (n=3) PCR positivity preceded URT PCR positivity. WGS corroborated household transmission. INTERPRETATION: Presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on primary cases' and contacts' hands and on frequently-touched household surfaces associates with transmission, identifying these as potential vectors for spread in households. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Respiratory Infections, Medical Research Council.

Onset and window of SARS-CoV-2 infectiousness and temporal correlation with symptom onset: a prospective, longitudinal, community cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the window of SARS-CoV-2 infectiousness is crucial in developing policies to curb transmission. Mathematical modelling based on scarce empirical evidence and key assumptions has driven isolation and testing policy, but real-world data are needed. We aimed to characterise infectiousness across the full course of infection in a real-world community setting. METHODS: The Assessment of Transmission and Contagiousness of COVID-19 in Contacts (ATACCC) study was a UK prospective, longitudinal, community cohort of contacts of newly diagnosed, PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 index cases. Household and non-household exposed contacts aged 5 years or older were eligible for recruitment if they could provide informed consent and agree to self-swabbing of the upper respiratory tract. The primary objective was to define the window of SARS-CoV-2 infectiousness and its temporal correlation with symptom onset. We quantified viral RNA load by RT-PCR and infectious viral shedding by enumerating cultivable virus daily across the course of infection. Participants completed a daily diary to track the emergence of symptoms. Outcomes were assessed with empirical data and a phenomenological Bayesian hierarchical model. FINDINGS: Between Sept 13, 2020, and March 31, 2021, we enrolled 393 contacts from 327 households (the SARS-CoV-2 pre-alpha and alpha variant waves); and between May 24, 2021, and Oct 28, 2021, we enrolled 345 contacts from 215 households (the delta variant wave). 173 of these 738 contacts were PCR positive for more than one timepoint, 57 of which were at the start of infection and comprised the final study population. The onset and end of infectious viral shedding were captured in 42 cases and the median duration of infectiousness was 5 (IQR 3-7) days. Although 24 (63%) of 38 cases had PCR-detectable virus before symptom onset, only seven (20%) of 35 shed infectious virus presymptomatically. Symptom onset was a median of 3 days before both peak viral RNA and peak infectious viral load (viral RNA IQR 3-5 days, n=38; plaque-forming units IQR 3-6 days, n=35). Notably, 22 (65%) of 34 cases and eight (24%) of 34 cases continued to shed infectious virus 5 days and 7 days post-symptom onset, respectively (survival probabilities 67% and 35%). Correlation of lateral flow device (LFD) results with infectious viral shedding was poor during the viral growth phase (sensitivity 67% [95% CI 59-75]), but high during the decline phase (92% [86-96]). Infectious virus kinetic modelling suggested that the initial rate of viral replication determines the course of infection and infectiousness. INTERPRETATION: Less than a quarter of COVID-19 cases shed infectious virus before symptom onset; under a crude 5-day self-isolation period from symptom onset, two-thirds of cases released into the community would still be infectious, but with reduced infectious viral shedding. Our findings support a role for LFDs to safely accelerate deisolation but not for early diagnosis, unless used daily. These high-resolution, community-based data provide evidence to inform infection control guidance. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow tests for detecting infectious people: linked data analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the proportion of lateral flow tests (LFTs) that produce negative results in those with a high risk of infectiousness from SARS-CoV-2, to investigate the impact of the stage and severity of disease, and to compare predictions made by influential mathematical models with findings of empirical studies. DESIGN: Linked data analysis combining empirical evidence of the accuracy of the Innova LFT, the probability of positive viral culture or transmission to secondary cases, and the distribution of viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals in different settings. SETTING: Testing of individuals with symptoms attending NHS Test-and-Trace centres across the UK, residents without symptoms attending municipal mass testing centres in Liverpool, and students without symptoms screened at the University of Birmingham. PARTICIPANTS: Evidence for the sensitivity of the Innova LFT, based on 70 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 and LFT results. Infectiousness was based on viral culture rates on 246 samples (176 people with SARS-CoV-2) and secondary cases among 2 474 066 contacts; distributions of cycle threshold (Ct) values from 231 497 index individuals attending NHS Test-and-Trace centres; 70 people with SARS-CoV-2 detected in Liverpool and 62 people with SARS-CoV-2 in Birmingham (54 imputed). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The predicted proportions who were missed by LFT and viral culture positive and missed by LFT and sources of secondary cases, in each of the three settings. Predictions were compared with those made by mathematical models. RESULTS: The analysis predicted that of those with a viral culture positive result, Innova would miss 20% attending an NHS Test-and-Trace centre, 29% without symptoms attending municipal mass testing, and 81% attending university screen testing without symptoms, along with 38%, 47%, and 90% of sources of secondary cases. In comparison, two mathematical models underestimated the numbers of missed infectious individuals (8%, 10%, and 32% in the three settings for one model, whereas the assumptions from the second model made it impossible to miss an infectious individual). Owing to the paucity of usable data, the inputs to the analyses are from limited sources. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of infectious people with SARS-CoV-2 missed by LFTs is substantial enough to be of clinical importance. The proportion missed varied between settings because of different viral load distributions and is likely to be highest in those without symptoms. Key models have substantially overestimated the sensitivity of LFTs compared with empirical data. An urgent need exists for additional robust well designed and reported empirical studies from intended use settings to inform evidence based policy.

Broadening symptom criteria improves early case identification in SARS-CoV-2 contacts.

BACKGROUND: The success of case isolation and contact tracing for the control of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission depends on the accuracy and speed of case identification. We assessed whether inclusion of additional symptoms alongside three canonical symptoms (CS), i.e. fever, cough and loss or change in smell or taste, could improve case definitions and accelerate case identification in SARS-CoV-2 contacts. METHODS: Two prospective longitudinal London (UK)-based cohorts of community SARS-CoV-2 contacts, recruited within 5 days of exposure, provided independent training and test datasets. Infected and uninfected contacts completed daily symptom diaries from the earliest possible time-points. Diagnostic information gained by adding symptoms to the CS was quantified using likelihood ratios and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Improvements in sensitivity and time to detection were compared with penalties in terms of specificity and number needed to test. RESULTS: Of 529 contacts within two cohorts, 164 (31%) developed PCR-confirmed infection and 365 (69%) remained uninfected. In the training dataset (n=168), 29% of infected contacts did not report the CS. Four symptoms (sore throat, muscle aches, headache and appetite loss) were identified as early-predictors (EP) which added diagnostic value to the CS. The broadened symptom criterion "≥1 of the CS, or ≥2 of the EP" identified PCR-positive contacts in the test dataset on average 2 days earlier after exposure (p=0.07) than "≥1 of the CS", with only modest reduction in specificity (5.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Broadening symptom criteria to include individuals with at least two of muscle aches, headache, appetite loss and sore throat identifies more infections and reduces time to detection, providing greater opportunities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Utility of the FebriDx point-of-care assay in supporting a triage algorithm for medical admissions with possible COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a triage algorithm used to identify and isolate patients with suspected COVID-19 among medical patients needing admission to hospital using simple clinical criteria and the FebriDx assay. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort. SETTING: Large acute National Health Service hospital in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: All medical admissions from the emergency department between 10 August 2020 and 4 November 2020 with a valid SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result. INTERVENTIONS: Medical admissions were triaged as likely, possible or unlikely COVID-19 based on clinical criteria. Patients triaged as possible COVID-19 underwent FebriDx lateral flow assay on capillary blood, and those positive for myxovirus resistance protein A (a host response protein) were managed as likely COVID-19. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of the algorithm and the FebriDx assay using SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs as the reference standard. RESULTS: 4.0% (136) of 3443 medical admissions had RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19. Prevalence of COVID-19 was 46% (80/175) in those triaged as likely, 4.1% (50/1225) in possible and 0.3% (6/2033) in unlikely COVID-19. Using a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR reference standard, clinical triage had sensitivity of 96% (95% CI 91% to 98%) and specificity of 61.5% (95% CI 59.8% to 63.1%), while the triage algorithm including FebriDx had sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 87% to 96%) and specificity of 86.4% (95% CI 85.2% to 87.5%). While 2033 patients were deemed not to require isolation using clinical criteria alone, the addition of FebriDx to clinical triage allowed a further 826 patients to be released from isolation, reducing the need for isolation rooms by 9.5 per day, 95% CI 8.9 to 10.2. Ten patients missed by the algorithm had mild or asymptomatic COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: A triage algorithm including the FebriDx assay had good sensitivity and was useful to 'rule-out' COVID-19 among medical admissions to hospital.