Evaluating the cost implications of integrating SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing for infection prevention and control investigation of nosocomial transmission within hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The COG-UK hospital-onset COVID-19 infection (HOCI) trial evaluated the impact of SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequencing (WGS) on acute infection, prevention, and control (IPC) investigation of nosocomial transmission within hospitals. AIM: To estimate the cost implications of using the information from the sequencing reporting tool (SRT), used to determine likelihood of nosocomial infection in IPC practice. METHODS: A micro-costing approach for SARS-CoV-2 WGS was conducted. Data on IPC management resource use and costs were collected from interviews with IPC teams from 14 participating sites and used to assign cost estimates for IPC activities as collected in the trial. Activities included IPC-specific actions following a suspicion of healthcare-associated infection (HAI) or outbreak, as well as changes to practice following the return of data via SRT. FINDINGS: The mean per-sample costs of SARS-CoV-2 sequencing were estimated at £77.10 for rapid and £66.94 for longer turnaround phases. Over the three-month interventional phases, the total management costs of IPC-defined HAIs and outbreak events across the sites were estimated at £225,070 and £416,447, respectively. The main cost drivers were bed-days lost due to ward closures because of outbreaks, followed by outbreak meetings and bed-days lost due to cohorting contacts. Actioning SRTs, the cost of HAIs increased by £5,178 due to unidentified cases and the cost of outbreaks decreased by £11,246 as SRTs excluded hospital outbreaks. CONCLUSION: Although SARS-CoV-2 WGS adds to the total IPC management cost, additional information provided could balance out the additional cost, depending on identified design improvements and effective deployment.

Real-world deployment of lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in the emergency department to provide rapid, accurate and safe diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 lateral-flow antigen detection (LFD) testing in the emergency department (ED) could inform rapid infection control decisions but requirements for safe deployment have not been fully defined. METHODS: Review of LFD test results, laboratory and POC-RT-PCR results and ED-performance metrics during a two-week high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence period followed by several months of falling prevalence. AIM: Determine whether LFD testing can be safely deployed in ED to provide an effective universal SARS-CoV-2 testing capability. FINDINGS: 93% (345/371) of COVID-19 patients left ED with a virological diagnosis during the 2-week universal LFD evaluation period compared to 77% with targeted POC-RT-PCR deployment alone, on background of approximately one-third having an NHS Track and Trace RT-PCR test-result at presentation. LFD sensitivity and specificity was 70.7% and 99.1% respectively providing a PPV of 97.7% and NPV of 86.4% with disease prevalence of 34.7%. ED discharge-delays (breaches) attributable to COVID-19 fell to 33/3532 (0.94%) compared with the preceding POC-RT-PCR period (107/4114 (2.6%); p=<0.0001). Importantly, LFD testing identified 1 or 2 clinically-unsuspected COVID-19 patients/day. Three clinically-confirmed LFD false positive patients were appropriately triaged based on LFD action-card flowchart, and only 5 of 95 false-negative LFD results were inappropriately admitted to non-COVID-19 areas where no onward-transmission was identified. LFD testing was restricted to asymptomatic patients when disease prevalence fell below 5% and detected 1-3 cases/week. CONCLUSION: Universal SARS-CoV-2 LFD testing can be safely and effectively deployed in ED alongside POC-RT-PCR testing during periods of high and low disease prevalence.