Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Ann Intern Med ; 2021 Jan 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1022199

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal swabs are the primary sampling method used for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but they require a trained health care professional and extensive personal protective equipment. PURPOSE: To determine the difference in sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection between nasopharyngeal swabs and saliva and estimate the incremental cost per additional SARS-CoV-2 infection detected with nasopharyngeal swabs. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were searched from 1 January to 1 November 2020. Cost inputs were from nationally representative sources in Canada and were converted to 2020 U.S. dollars. STUDY SELECTION: Studies including at least 5 paired nasopharyngeal swab and saliva samples and reporting diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 detection. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted using standardized forms, and study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2). DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-seven studies with 7332 paired samples were included. Against a reference standard of a positive result on either sample, the sensitivity of saliva was 3.4 percentage points lower (95% CI, 9.9 percentage points lower to 3.1 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons with previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, saliva's sensitivity was 1.5 percentage points higher (CI, 7.3 percentage points lower to 10.3 percentage points higher) than that of nasopharyngeal swabs. Among persons without a previous SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, saliva was 7.9 percentage points less (CI, 14.7 percentage points less to 0.8 percentage point more) sensitive. In this subgroup, if testing 100 000 persons with a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence of 1%, nasopharyngeal swabs would detect 79 more (95% uncertainty interval, 5 fewer to 166 more) persons with SARS-CoV-2 than saliva, but with an incremental cost per additional infection detected of $8093. LIMITATION: The reference standard was imperfect, and saliva collection procedures varied. CONCLUSION: Saliva sampling seems to be a similarly sensitive and less costly alternative that could replace nasopharyngeal swabs for collection of clinical samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity. (PROSPERO: CRD42020203415).

3.
PLoS One ; 15(11): e0241536, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-902054

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the proportion of asymptomatic infection among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive persons and their transmission potential. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv up to 22 June 2020. We included cohorts or cross-sectional studies which systematically tested populations regardless of symptoms for COVID-19, or case series of any size reporting contact investigations of asymptomatic index patients. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality using pre-specified criteria. Only moderate/high quality studies were included. The main outcomes were proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons at testing and through follow-up, and secondary attack rate among close contacts of asymptomatic index patients. A qualitative synthesis was performed. Where appropriate, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis to estimate proportions and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of 6,137 identified studies, 71 underwent quality assessment after full text review, and 28 were high/moderate quality and were included. In two general population studies, the proportion of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection at time of testing was 20% and 75%, respectively; among three studies in contacts it was 8.2% to 50%. In meta-analysis, the proportion (95% CI) of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection in obstetric patients was 95% (45% to 100%) of which 59% (49% to 68%) remained asymptomatic through follow-up; among nursing home residents, the proportion was 54% (42% to 65%) of which 28% (13% to 50%) remained asymptomatic through follow-up. Transmission studies were too heterogenous to meta-analyse. Among five transmission studies, 18 of 96 (18.8%) close contacts exposed to asymptomatic index patients were COVID-19 positive. CONCLUSIONS: Despite study heterogeneity, the proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons appears high and transmission potential seems substantial. To further our understanding, high quality studies in representative general population samples are required.


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Databases, Factual , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Prevalence
4.
CMAJ ; 192(40): E1146-E1155, 2020 10 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-751000

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is largely passive, which impedes epidemic control. We defined active testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for groups at increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 in all Canadian provinces. METHODS: We identified 5 groups who should be prioritized for active RT-PCR testing: contacts of people who are positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 4 at-risk populations - hospital employees, community health care workers and people in long-term care facilities, essential business employees, and schoolchildren and staff. We estimated costs, human resources and laboratory capacity required to test people in each group or to perform surveillance testing in random samples. RESULTS: During July 8-17, 2020, across all provinces in Canada, an average of 41 751 RT-PCR tests were performed daily; we estimated this required 5122 personnel and cost $2.4 million per day ($67.8 million per month). Systematic contact tracing and testing would increase personnel needs 1.2-fold and monthly costs to $78.9 million. Conducted over a month, testing all hospital employees would require 1823 additional personnel, costing $29.0 million; testing all community health care workers and persons in long-term care facilities would require 11 074 additional personnel and cost $124.8 million; and testing all essential employees would cost $321.7 million, requiring 25 965 added personnel. Testing the larger population within schools over 6 weeks would require 46 368 added personnel and cost $816.0 million. Interventions addressing inefficiencies, including saliva-based sampling and pooling samples, could reduce costs by 40% and personnel by 20%. Surveillance testing in population samples other than contacts would cost 5% of the cost of a universal approach to testing at-risk populations. INTERPRETATION: Active testing of groups at increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 appears feasible and would support the safe reopening of the economy and schools more broadly. This strategy also appears affordable compared with the $169.2 billion committed by the federal government as a response to the pandemic as of June 2020.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/economics , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/economics , Mass Screening/economics , Pandemics/economics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/economics , Canada , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/economics , Risk Assessment/economics , Risk Factors
5.
BMJ ; 370: m2516, 2020 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-623945

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND DATA ANALYSIS: Eligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset. RESULTS: 5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%). CONCLUSION: Higher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020179452.


Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Serologic Tests/standards , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Humans , Immunoassay , Luminescent Measurements , Pandemics , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL