Surveillance testing using salivary RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in managed quarantine facilities in Australia: A laboratory validation and implementation study.

Background: Regular repeat surveillance testing is a strategy to identify asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections in high-risk work settings to prevent onward community transmission. Saliva sampling is less invasive compared to nasal/oropharyngeal sampling, thus making it suitable for regular testing. In this multi-centre evaluation, we aimed to validate RT-PCR using salivary swab testing of SARS-CoV-2 for large-scale surveillance testing and assess implementation amongst staff working in the hotel quarantine system in Victoria, Australia. Methods: A multi-centre laboratory evaluation study was conducted to systematically validate the in vitro and clinical performance of salivary swab RT-PCR for implementation of SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing. Analytical sensitivity for multiple RT-PCR platforms was assessed using a dilution series of known SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, and assay specificity was examined using a panel of viral pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2. In addition, we tested capacity for large-scale saliva testing using a four-sample pooling approach, where positive pools were subsequently decoupled and retested. Regular, frequent self-collected saliva swab RT-PCR testing was implemented for staff across fourteen quarantine hotels. Samples were tested at three diagnostic laboratories validated in this study, and results were provided back to staff in real-time. Findings: The agreement of self-collected saliva swabs for RT-PCR was 84.5% (95% CI 68.6 to 93.8) compared to RT-PCR using nasal/oropharyngeal swab samples collected by a healthcare practitioner, when saliva samples were collected within seven days of symptom onset. Between 7th December 2020 and 17th December 2021, almost 500,000 RT-PCR tests were performed on saliva swabs self-collected by 102 staff working in quarantine hotels in Melbourne. Of these, 20 positive saliva swabs were produced by 13 staff (0.004%). The majority of staff that tested positive occurred during periods of community transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. Interpretation: Salivary RT-PCR had an acceptable level of agreement compared to standard nasal/oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR within early symptom onset. The scalability, tolerability and ease of self-collection highlights utility for frequent or repeated testing in high-risk settings, such as quarantine or healthcare environments where regular monitoring of staff is critical for public health, and protection of vulnerable populations. Funding: This work was funded by the Victorian Department of Health.

Experience and perspectives of infection prevention staff of the COVID-19 response in Australian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Hospital infection prevention and control (IPC) staff have played a key role in adapting and implementing jurisdictional COVID-19 policy during the current pandemic. We aimed to describe the experiences of IPC staff in Australian hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform future pandemic preparedness plans. METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving an online survey distributed to IPC practitioners employed in Australian hospitals. Survey content was informed by in-depth interviews, and addressed work conditions, redeployed workforce, personal protective equipment, communication, and guidelines. Participants were recruited through the mailing lists of Australasian College of Infection Prevention and Control and the Australasian Society of Infectious Diseases. RESULTS: We received fully or partially completed responses from 160 participants, including 38 (24%) and 122 (76%) with nursing and medical backgrounds, respectively. Respondents reported access to sufficient information about PPE (75%, 114/152), PPE was of sufficient quantity (77%, 117/152) and was of sufficient quality (70%, 106/152). Barriers to infection prevention guideline implementation included frequently changing guidelines (57%, 84/148), timing of updates (65%, 96/148) and contradictory sources of information (64%, 95/148). Respondents described a need for better communication channels from government authorities to hospital IPC teams. All respondents described an increase in workload leading to difficulty completing work (63%, 97/154) and feeling burnt out (48%, 74/154). CONCLUSIONS: These data identify avoidable barriers to implementation of COVID-19 infection prevention guidance in Australian hospitals. These findings can inform future national preparedness strategies.

The effect of hand hygiene frequency on reducing acute respiratory infections in the community: a meta-analysis.

Hand hygiene is a simple, low-cost intervention that may lead to substantial population-level effects in suppressing acute respiratory infection epidemics. However, quantification of the efficacy of hand hygiene on respiratory infection in the community is lacking. We searched PubMed for randomised controlled trials on the effect of hand hygiene for reducing acute respiratory infections in the community published before 11 March 2021. We performed a meta-regression analysis using a Bayesian mixed-effects model. A total of 105 publications were identified, out of which six studies reported hand hygiene frequencies. Four studies were performed in household settings and two were in schools. The average number of handwashing events per day ranged from one to eight in the control arms, and four to 17 in the intervention arms. We estimated that a single hand hygiene event is associated with a 3% (80% credible interval (-1% to 7%)) decrease in the daily probability of an acute respiratory infection. Three of these six studies were potentially at high risk of bias because the primary outcome depended on self-reporting of upper respiratory tract symptoms. Well-designed trials with an emphasis on monitoring hand hygiene adherence are needed to confirm these findings.

P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear. METHODS: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks. CONCLUSION: The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.

Bringing evidence from press release to the clinic in the era of COVID-19.

The urgent need to develop effective therapeutics and disseminate information from clinical studies has led to data from clinical trials being made available by alternate methods prior to peer-reviewed publication, including press releases, social media and pre-print papers. While this allows clinicians more open access to these data, a trust has to be placed with the investigators releasing these data without the availability of scientifically rigorous peer review. The examples of results from trials studying dexamethasone and hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 have had contrasting outcomes, including the potential for significant numbers of lives saved with the early release of results from the RECOVERY trial studying dexamethasone contrasting with unsubstantiated data being presented from trials studying hydroxychloroquine. Clinicians and researchers must maintain a healthy scepticism when reviewing results prior to peer-reviewed publication, but also consider when these opportunities may allow for early implementation of potentially lifesaving interventions for people infected with COVID-19.