The impact of vaccination status on importation of COVID-19 among international travellers.

Governments worldwide are looking for ways to safely enable international travel while mitigating the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, few data describe the impact of vaccination on importation of COVID-19. We took advantage of the sequential introduction of two government policies in Canada to evaluate the real-world evidence of vaccine effectiveness among 30,361 international travellers arriving by air in Alberta, Canada. The proportion of COVID-19-positive results for travellers who were either fully vaccinated or partially vaccinated was 0.02% (95% CI: 0.00-0.10) (i.e. one positive case among 5,817 travellers). In contrast, 1.42% (95% CI: 1.27-1.58) of unvaccinated travellers tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (341 cases among 24,034 travellers). These findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccinations approved in Canada, substantially reduced the risk of travel-related importation of COVID-19 when combined with other public health measures. The low absolute rate of infection among fully vaccinated or partially vaccinated international travellers may inform quarantine requirements in this population.

Population surveillance approach to detect and respond to new clusters of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: To maintain control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic as lockdowns are lifted, it will be crucial to enhance alternative public health measures. For surveillance, it will be necessary to detect a high proportion of any new cases quickly so that they can be isolated, and people who have been exposed to them traced and quarantined. Here we introduce a mathematical approach that can be used to determine how many samples need to be collected per unit area and unit time to detect new clusters of COVID-19 cases at a stage early enough to control an outbreak. METHODS: We present a sample size determination method that uses a relative weighted approach. Given the contribution of COVID-19 test results from sub-populations to detect the disease at a threshold prevalence level to control the outbreak to 1) determine if the expected number of weekly samples provided from current healthcare-based surveillance for respiratory virus infections may provide a sample size that is already adequate to detect new clusters of COVID-19 and, if not, 2) to determine how many additional weekly samples were needed from volunteer sampling. RESULTS: In a demonstration of our method at the weekly and Canadian provincial and territorial (P/T) levels, we found that only the more populous P/T have sufficient testing numbers from healthcare visits for respiratory illness to detect COVID-19 at our target prevalence level-assumed to be high enough to identify and control new clusters. Furthermore, detection of COVID-19 is most efficient (fewer samples required) when surveillance focuses on healthcare symptomatic testing demand. In the volunteer populations: the higher the contact rates; the higher the expected prevalence level; and the fewer the samples were needed to detect COVID-19 at a predetermined threshold level. CONCLUSION: This study introduces a targeted surveillance strategy, combining both passive and active surveillance samples, to determine how many samples to collect per unit area and unit time to detect new clusters of COVID-19 cases. The goal of this strategy is to allow for early enough detection to control an outbreak.

COVID-19 infection among international travellers: a prospective analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This report estimates the risk of COVID-19 importation and secondary transmission associated with a modified quarantine programme in Canada. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective analysis of international asymptomatic travellers entering Alberta, Canada. INTERVENTIONS: All participants were required to receive a PCR COVID-19 test on arrival. If negative, participants could leave quarantine but were required to have a second test 6 or 7 days after arrival. If the arrival test was positive, participants were required to remain in quarantine for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion and rate of participants testing positive for COVID-19; number of cases of secondary transmission. RESULTS: The analysis included 9535 international travellers entering Alberta by air (N=8398) or land (N=1137) that voluntarily enrolled in the Alberta Border Testing Pilot Programme (a subset of all travellers); most (83.1%) were Canadian citizens. Among the 9310 participants who received at least one test, 200 (21.5 per 1000, 95% CI 18.6 to 24.6) tested positive. Sixty-nine per cent (138/200) of positive tests were detected on arrival (14.8 per 1000 travellers, 95% CI 12.5 to 17.5). 62 cases (6.7 per 1000 travellers, 95% CI 5.1 to 8.5; 31.0% of positive cases) were identified among participants that had been released from quarantine following a negative test result on arrival. Of 192 participants who developed symptoms, 51 (26.6%) tested positive after arrival. Among participants with positive tests, four (2.0%) were hospitalised for COVID-19; none required critical care or died. Contact tracing among participants who tested positive identified 200 contacts; of 88 contacts tested, 22 were cases of secondary transmission (14 from those testing positive on arrival and 8 from those testing positive thereafter). SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage was not detected in any of the 200 positive cases. CONCLUSIONS: 21.5 per 1000 international travellers tested positive for COVID-19. Most (69%) tested positive on arrival and 31% tested positive during follow-up. These findings suggest the need for ongoing vigilance in travellers testing negative on arrival and highlight the value of follow-up testing and contact tracing to monitor and limit secondary transmission where possible.

Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1-2 week) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. RESULTS: A request for developing recommendations within 2 week is the usual trigger for an urgent response. Although the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of the 4 potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations, adapt existing recommendations, develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review, or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan. CONCLUSION: An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled, and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise; adapting to shifting needs; complying with the principles of transparency; and properly managing conflicts of interest.