Sensitivity of RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 through time.

Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests are the gold standard for detecting recent infection with SARS-CoV-2. RT-PCR sensitivity varies over the course of an individual's infection, related to changes in viral load. Differences in testing methods, and individual-level variables such as age, may also affect sensitivity. Using data from New Zealand, we estimate the time-varying sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR under varying temporal, biological and demographic factors. Sensitivity peaks 4-5 days post-infection at 92.7% [91.4%, 94.0%] and remains over 88% between 5 and 14 days post-infection. After the peak, sensitivity declined more rapidly in vaccinated cases compared to unvaccinated, females compared to males, those aged under 40 compared to over 40 s, and Pacific peoples compared to other ethnicities. RT-PCR remains a sensitive technique and has been an effective tool in New Zealand's border and post-border measures to control COVID-19. Our results inform model parameters and decisions concerning routine testing frequency.

Physician Perspectives on Telemedicine at an Integrated Health System During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: The use of telemedicine (TM) for patient care greatly increased during the COVID pandemic. This study presents data from a single health system regarding physician's perspectives on TM, which could ultimately determine how it is used in the future. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to physicians throughout the health system. Physicians were divided based on the standard level of patient interaction in each specialty, as well as practice locations and years in practice. Physician perspectives were categorized by their opinions on different aspects of telehealth visits. Results: Of 1,794 physicians, 379 (20.7%) responded to the survey. Psychiatrists used TM significantly more than other groups and project the most future use. Surgeons were least likely to incorporate TM in the future. Ability to perform a physical examination via TM differed significantly by specialty and practice environment, but not by years in practice. Frequency of being able to complete a treatment plan via TM differed significantly by specialty, but not by years in practice or practice environment. Overall, 76.3% of physicians reported feeling "satisfied" with performing TM visits. Satisfaction with TM varied significantly by specialty and practice environment, but not by years in practice. There were no significant differences regarding physician expectations on reimbursement or billing for TM visits based on specialty, age, or practice environment. Conclusions: Discrepancies exist among physicians with respect to their satisfaction and expected future use of TM. Consensus may be difficult to reach regarding reimbursement for these visits, and further work is needed to clarify the optimal practice setting for TM.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis and treatment of men with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnostic and treatment activity in 2020 across hospital providers of prostate cancer (PCa) care in the English National Health Service. METHODS: Diagnostic and treatment activity between 23 March (start of first national lockdown in England) and 31 December 2020 was compared with the same calendar period in 2019. Patients newly diagnosed with PCa were identified from national rapid cancer registration data linked to other electronic healthcare datasets. RESULTS: There was a 30.8% reduction (22 419 vs 32 409) in the number of men with newly diagnosed PCa in 2020 after the start of the first lockdown, compared with the corresponding period in 2019. Men diagnosed in 2020 were typically at a more advanced stage (Stage IV: 21.2% vs 17.4%) and slightly older (57.9% vs 55.9% ≥ 70 years; P < 0.001). Prostate biopsies in 2020 were more often performed using transperineal (TP) routes (64.0% vs 38.2%). The number of radical prostatectomies in 2020 was reduced by 26.9% (3896 vs 5331) and the number treated by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) by 14.1% (9719 vs 11 309). Other changes included an increased use of EBRT with hypofractionation and reduced use of docetaxel chemotherapy in men with hormone-sensitive metastatic PCa (413 vs 1519) with related increase in the use of enzalutamide. CONCLUSION: We found substantial deficits in the number of diagnostic and treatment procedures for men with newly diagnosed PCa after the start of the first lockdown in 2020. The number of men diagnosed with PCa decreased by about one-third and those diagnosed had more advanced disease. Treatment patterns shifted towards those that limit the risk of COVID-19 exposure including increased use of TP biopsy, hypofractionated radiation, and enzalutamide. Urgent concerted action is required to address the COVID-19-related deficits in PCa services to mitigate their impact on long-term outcomes.

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the Southern Region of New Zealand, 2020.

During New Zealand's first outbreak in early 2020 the Southern Region had the highest per capita SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing was initially limited by a narrow case definition and limited laboratory capacity, and cases may have been missed. Our objectives were to evaluate the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG nucleocapsid assay, alongside spike-based assays, and to determine the frequency of antibodies among PCR-confirmed and probable cases, and higher risk individuals in the Southern Region of New Zealand. Pre-pandemic sera (n=300) were used to establish assay specificity and sera from PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (n=78) to establish sensitivity. For prevalence analysis, all samples (n=1214) were tested on the Abbott assay, and all PCR-confirmed cases (n=78), probable cases (n=9), and higher risk individuals with 'grey-zone' (n=14) or positive results (n=11) were tested on four additional SARS-CoV-2 serological assays. The median time from infection onset to serum collection for PCR-confirmed cases was 14 weeks (range 11-17 weeks). The Abbott assay demonstrated a specificity of 99.7% (95% CI 98.2-99.99%) and a sensitivity of 76.9% (95% CI 66.0-85.7%). Spike-based assays demonstrated superior sensitivity ranging 89.7-94.9%. Nine previously undiagnosed sero-positive individuals were identified, and all had epidemiological risk factors. Spike-based assays demonstrated higher sensitivity than the Abbott IgG assay, likely due to temporal differences in antibody persistence. No unexpected SARS-CoV-2 infections were found in the Southern Region of New Zealand, supporting the elimination status of the country at the time this study was conducted.

Detecting the re-emergent COVID-19 pandemic after elimination: modelling study of combined primary care and hospital surveillance.

AIMS: We aimed to determine the effectiveness of surveillance using testing for SARS-CoV-2 to identify an outbreak arising from a single case of border control failure in a country that has eliminated community transmission of COVID-19: New Zealand. METHODS: A stochastic version of the SEIR model CovidSIM v1.1 designed specifically for COVID-19 was utilised. It was seeded with New Zealand population data and relevant parameters sourced from the New Zealand and international literature. RESULTS: For what we regard as the most plausible scenario with an effective reproduction number of 2.0, the results suggest that 95% of outbreaks from a single imported case would be detected in the period up to day 36 after introduction. At the time point of detection, there would be a median number of five infected cases in the community (95% range: 1-29). To achieve this level of detection, an ongoing programme of 5,580 tests per day (1,120 tests per million people per day) for the New Zealand population would be required. The vast majority of this testing (96%) would be of symptomatic cases in primary care settings and the rest in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This model-based analysis suggests that a surveillance system with a very high level of routine testing is probably required to detect an emerging or re-emerging SARS-CoV-2 outbreak within five weeks of a border control failure in a nation that had previously eliminated COVID-19. Nevertheless, there are plausible strategies to enhance testing yield and cost-effectiveness and potential supplementary surveillance systems such as the testing of town/city sewerage systems for the pandemic virus.

Digital contact tracing technologies in epidemics: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global priority. Contact tracing identifies people who were recently in contact with an infected individual, in order to isolate them and reduce further transmission. Digital technology could be implemented to augment and accelerate manual contact tracing. Digital tools for contact tracing may be grouped into three areas: 1) outbreak response; 2) proximity tracing; and 3) symptom tracking. We conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of digital solutions to contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits, harms, and acceptability of personal digital contact tracing solutions for identifying contacts of an identified positive case of an infectious disease. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched the literature from 1 January 2000 to 5 May 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. Additionally, we screened the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and modelling studies, in general populations. We preferentially included studies of contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks (including COVID-19, Ebola, tuberculosis, severe acute respiratory syndrome virus, and Middle East respiratory syndrome) as direct evidence, but considered comparative studies of contact tracing outside an outbreak as indirect evidence. The digital solutions varied but typically included software (or firmware) for users to install on their devices or to be uploaded to devices provided by governments or third parties. Control measures included traditional or manual contact tracing, self-reported diaries and surveys, interviews, other standard methods for determining close contacts, and other technologies compared to digital solutions (e.g. electronic medical records). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened records and all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data for 50% of the included studies, another extracted data for the remaining 50%; the second review author checked all the extracted data. One review author assessed quality of included studies and a second checked the assessments. Our outcomes were identification of secondary cases and close contacts, time to complete contact tracing, acceptability and accessibility issues, privacy and safety concerns, and any other ethical issue identified. Though modelling studies will predict estimates of the effects of different contact tracing solutions on outcomes of interest, cohort studies provide empirically measured estimates of the effects of different contact tracing solutions on outcomes of interest. We used GRADE-CERQual to describe certainty of evidence from qualitative data and GRADE for modelling and cohort studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six cohort studies reporting quantitative data and six modelling studies reporting simulations of digital solutions for contact tracing. Two cohort studies also provided qualitative data. Three cohort studies looked at contact tracing during an outbreak, whilst three emulated an outbreak in non-outbreak settings (schools). Of the six modelling studies, four evaluated digital solutions for contact tracing in simulated COVID-19 scenarios, while two simulated close contacts in non-specific outbreak settings. Modelling studies Two modelling studies provided low-certainty evidence of a reduction in secondary cases using digital contact tracing (measured as average number of secondary cases per index case - effective reproductive number (R eff)). One study estimated an 18% reduction in R eff with digital contact tracing compared to self-isolation alone, and a 35% reduction with manual contact-tracing. Another found a reduction in R eff for digital contact tracing compared to self-isolation alone (26% reduction) and a reduction in R eff for manual contact tracing compared to self-isolation alone (53% reduction). However, the certainty of evidence was reduced by unclear specifications of their models, and assumptions about the effectiveness of manual contact tracing (assumed 95% to 100% of contacts traced), and the proportion of the population who would have the app (53%). Cohort studies Two cohort studies provided very low-certainty evidence of a benefit of digital over manual contact tracing. During an Ebola outbreak, contact tracers using an app found twice as many close contacts per case on average than those using paper forms. Similarly, after a pertussis outbreak in a US hospital, researchers found that radio-frequency identification identified 45 close contacts but searches of electronic medical records found 13. The certainty of evidence was reduced by concerns about imprecision, and serious risk of bias due to the inability of contact tracing study designs to identify the true number of close contacts. One cohort study provided very low-certainty evidence that an app could reduce the time to complete a set of close contacts. The certainty of evidence for this outcome was affected by imprecision and serious risk of bias. Contact tracing teams reported that digital data entry and management systems were faster to use than paper systems and possibly less prone to data loss. Two studies from lower- or middle-income countries, reported that contact tracing teams found digital systems simpler to use and generally preferred them over paper systems; they saved personnel time, reportedly improved accuracy with large data sets, and were easier to transport compared with paper forms. However, personnel faced increased costs and internet access problems with digital compared to paper systems. Devices in the cohort studies appeared to have privacy from contacts regarding the exposed or diagnosed users. However, there were risks of privacy breaches from snoopers if linkage attacks occurred, particularly for wearable devices. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of digital solutions is largely unproven as there are very few published data in real-world outbreak settings. Modelling studies provide low-certainty evidence of a reduction in secondary cases if digital contact tracing is used together with other public health measures such as self-isolation. Cohort studies provide very low-certainty evidence that digital contact tracing may produce more reliable counts of contacts and reduce time to complete contact tracing. Digital solutions may have equity implications for at-risk populations with poor internet access and poor access to digital technology. Stronger primary research on the effectiveness of contact tracing technologies is needed, including research into use of digital solutions in conjunction with manual systems, as digital solutions are unlikely to be used alone in real-world settings. Future studies should consider access to and acceptability of digital solutions, and the resultant impact on equity. Studies should also make acceptability and uptake a primary research question, as privacy concerns can prevent uptake and effectiveness of these technologies.