An Assessment of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test in Bangladesh.

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial to prevent its spread. This study aimed to document test sensitivity/specificity, correlation with cycle threshold value from polymerase chain reaction (PCR), fitness-for-use in different populations and settings, and user perspectives that could inform large-scale implementation. In this study, we evaluated the performance of a rapid antigen detection test, BD Veritor, and compared this (and another rapid test, Standard Q) against reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in terms of sensitivity and specificity in 130 symptomatic and 130 asymptomatic adults. In addition, we evaluated the suitability and ease of use of the BD Veritor test in a subsample of study participants (n = 42) and implementers (n = 5). At 95% confidence interval, the sensitivity of the BD Veritor and Standard Q test were 70% and 63% in symptomatic and 87% and 73% in asymptomatic individuals, respectively, regarding positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results. Overall, the BD Veritor test was 78% sensitive and 99.5% specific compared with RT-PCR irrespective of the cycle threshold. This warrants large field evaluation as well as use of the rapid antigen test for quick assessment of SARS-CoV-2 for containment of epidemics in the country.

Disparities in SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Race, Ethnicity, Language, and Social Vulnerability: Evidence from a Citywide Seroprevalence Study in Massachusetts, USA.

OBJECTIVES: Uncovering and addressing disparities in infectious disease outbreaks require a rapid, methodical understanding of local epidemiology. We conducted a seroprevalence study of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Holyoke, Massachusetts, a majority Hispanic city with high levels of socio-economic disadvantage to estimate seroprevalence and identify disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We invited 2000 randomly sampled households between 11/5/2020 and 12/31/2020 to complete questionnaires and provide dried blood spots for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. We calculated seroprevalence based on the presence of IgG antibodies using a weighted Bayesian procedure that incorporated uncertainty in antibody test sensitivity and specificity and accounted for household clustering. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty households including 472 individuals were enrolled. Three hundred twenty-eight individuals underwent antibody testing. Citywide seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG was 13.1% (95% CI 6.9-22.3) compared to 9.8% of the population infected based on publicly reported cases. Seroprevalence was 16.1% (95% CI 6.2-31.8) among Hispanic individuals compared to 9.4% (95% CI 4.6-16.4) among non-Hispanic white individuals. Seroprevalence was higher among Spanish-speaking households (21.9%; 95% CI 8.3-43.9) compared to English-speaking households (10.2%; 95% CI 5.2-18.0) and among individuals in high social vulnerability index (SVI) areas based on the CDC SVI (14.4%; 95% CI 7.1-25.5) compared to low SVI areas (8.2%; 95% CI 3.1-16.9). CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence in a city with high levels of social vulnerability was 13.1% during the pre-vaccination period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hispanic individuals and individuals in communities characterized by high SVI were at the highest risk of infection. Public health interventions should be designed to ensure that individuals in high social vulnerability communities have access to the tools to combat COVID-19.

Evaluation of the Access Bio CareStart rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in asymptomatic individuals tested at a community mass-testing program in Western Massachusetts.

Point-of-care antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to detect Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represent a scalable tool for surveillance of active SARS-CoV-2 infections in the population. Data on the performance of these tests in real-world community settings are paramount to guide their implementation to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the performance characteristics of the CareStart COVID-19 Antigen test (CareStart) in a community testing site in Holyoke, Massachusetts. We compared CareStart to a SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) reference, both using anterior nasal swab samples. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and the expected positive and negative predictive values at different SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates. We performed 666 total tests on 591 unique individuals. 573 (86%) were asymptomatic. There were 52 positive tests by RT-qPCR. The sensitivity of CareStart was 49.0% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 34.8-63.4) and specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.5-99.9). Among positive RT-qPCR tests, the median cycle threshold (Ct) was significantly lower in samples that tested positive on CareStart. Using a Ct ≤ 30 as a benchmark for positivity increased the sensitivity of the test to 64.9% (95% CI 47.5-79.8). Our study shows that CareStart has a high specificity and moderate sensitivity. The utility of RDTs, such as CareStart, in mass implementation should prioritize use cases in which a higher specificity is more important, such as triage tests to rule-in active infections in community surveillance programs.

Effectiveness of contact tracing in the control of infectious diseases: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Contact tracing is used for multiple infectious diseases, most recently for COVID-19, but data regarding its effectiveness in disease control are scarce. To address this knowledge gap and inform public health decision making for COVID-19, we systematically reviewed the existing literature to determine the effectiveness of contact tracing in the control of communicable illness. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from database inception up to Nov 22, 2021, for published studies evaluating associations between provider-initiated contact tracing for transmissible infectious diseases and one of three outcomes of interest: case detection rates among contacts or at the community level, overall forward transmission, or overall disease incidence. Clinical trials and observational studies were eligible, with no language or date restrictions. Reference lists of reviews were searched for additional studies. We excluded studies without a control group, using only mathematical modelling, not reporting a primary outcome of interest, or solely examining patient-initiated contact tracing. One reviewer applied eligibility criteria to each screened abstract and full-text article, and two reviewers independently extracted summary effect estimates and additional data from eligible studies. Only data reported in published manuscripts or supplemental material was extracted. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (randomised studies) or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (non-randomised studies). FINDINGS: We identified 9050 unique citations, of which 47 studies met the inclusion criteria: six were focused on COVID-19, 20 on tuberculosis, eight on HIV, 12 on curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and one on measles. More than 2 million index patients were included across a variety of settings (both urban and rural areas and low-resource and high-resource settings). Of the 47 studies, 29 (61·7%) used observational designs, including all studies on COVID-19, and 18 (38·3%) were randomised controlled trials. 40 studies compared provider-initiated contact tracing with other interventions or evaluated expansions of provider-initiated contact tracing, and seven compared programmatic adaptations within provider-initiated contact tracing. 29 (72·5%) of the 40 studies evaluating the effect of provider-initiated contact tracing, including four (66·7%) of six COVID-19 studies, found contact tracing interventions were associated with improvements in at least one outcome of interest. 23 (48·9%) studies had low risk of bias, 22 (46·8%) studies had some risk of bias, and two (4·3%) studies (both randomised controlled trials on curable STIs) had high risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: Provider-initiated contact tracing can be an effective public health tool. However, the ability of authorities to make informed choices about its deployment might be limited by heterogenous approaches to contact tracing in studies, a scarcity of quantitative evidence on its effectiveness, and absence of specificity of tracing parameters most important for disease control. FUNDING: The Sullivan Family Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research, and US National Institutes of Health.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Diagnostic Clinical Decision Support: A Pre-Post Implementation Study of CORAL (COvid Risk cALculator).

BACKGROUND: Isolation of hospitalized persons under investigation (PUIs) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reduces nosocomial transmission risk. Efficient evaluation of PUIs is needed to preserve scarce healthcare resources. We describe the development, implementation, and outcomes of an inpatient diagnostic algorithm and clinical decision support system (CDSS) to evaluate PUIs. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post study of CORAL (COvid Risk cALculator), a CDSS that guides frontline clinicians through a risk-stratified COVID-19 diagnostic workup, removes transmission-based precautions when workup is complete and negative, and triages complex cases to infectious diseases (ID) physician review. Before CORAL, ID physicians reviewed all PUI records to guide workup and precautions. After CORAL, frontline clinicians evaluated PUIs directly using CORAL. We compared pre- and post-CORAL frequency of repeated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), time from NAAT result to PUI status discontinuation, total duration of PUI status, and ID physician work hours, using linear and logistic regression, adjusted for COVID-19 incidence. RESULTS: Fewer PUIs underwent repeated testing after an initial negative NAAT after CORAL than before CORAL (54% vs 67%, respectively; adjusted odd ratio, 0.53 [95% confidence interval, .44-.63]; P < .01). CORAL significantly reduced average time to PUI status discontinuation (adjusted difference [standard error], -7.4 [0.8] hours per patient), total duration of PUI status (-19.5 [1.9] hours per patient), and average ID physician work-hours (-57.4 [2.0] hours per day) (all P < .01). No patients had a positive NAAT result within 7 days after discontinuation of precautions via CORAL. CONCLUSIONS: CORAL is an efficient and effective CDSS to guide frontline clinicians through the diagnostic evaluation of PUIs and safe discontinuation of precautions.

Facility-Level Approaches for COVID-19 When Caseload Surpasses Surge Capacity.

As COVID-19 cases continue to increase globally, fragile health systems already facing challenges with health system infrastructure, SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic capacity, and patient isolation capabilities may be left with few options to effectively care for acutely ill patients. Haiti-with only two laboratories that can perform reverse transcriptase PCR for SARS-CoV-2, a paucity of hospital beds, and an exponential increase in cases-provides an example that underpins the need for immediate infrastructure solutions for the crisis. We present two COVID-19 treatment center designs that leverage lessons learned from previous outbreaks of communicable infectious diseases and provide potential solutions when caseload exceeds existing capacity, with and without access to SARS-CoV-2 testing. These designs are intended for settings in which health facilities and testing resources for COVID-19 are surpassed during the pandemic, are adaptable to local conditions and constraints, and mitigate the likelihood of nosocomial transmission while offering an option to care for hospitalized patients.