Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Eur J Epidemiol ; 37(5): 549-561, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1872578

ABSTRACT

Household transmission studies are useful to quantify SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics. We conducted a remote prospective household study to quantify transmission, and the effects of subject characteristics, household characteristics, and implemented infection control measures on transmission. Households with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 index case were enrolled < 48 h following test result. Follow-up included digitally daily symptom recording, regular nose-throat self-sampling and paired dried blood spots from all household members. Samples were tested for virus detection and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Secondary attack rates (SARs) and associated factors were estimated using logistic regression. In 276 households with 920 participants (276 index cases and 644 household members) daily symptom diaries and questionnaires were completed by 95%, and > 85% completed sample collection. 200 secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected, yielding a household SAR of 45.7% (95% CI 39.7-51.7%) and per-person SAR of 32.6% (95%CI: 28.1-37.4%). 126 (63%) secondary cases were detected at enrollment. Mild (aRR = 0.57) and asymptomatic index cases (aRR = 0.29) were less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared to index cases with an acute respiratory illness (p = 0.03 for trend), and child index cases (< 12 years aRR = 0.60 and 12-18 years aRR = 0.85) compared to adults (p = 0.03 for trend). Infection control interventions in households had no significant effect on transmission. We found high SARs with the majority of transmissions occuring early after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into the household. This may explain the futile effect of implemented household measures. Age and symptom status of the index case influence secondary transmission. Remote, digitally-supported study designs with self-sampling are feasible for studying transmission under pandemic restrictions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Family Characteristics , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Prospective Studies
2.
Euro Surveill ; 27(8)2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714940

ABSTRACT

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays are more sensitive than rapid antigen detection assays (RDT) and can detect viral RNA even after an individual is no longer infectious. RDT can reduce the time to test and the results might better correlate with infectiousness.AimWe assessed the ability of five RDT to identify infectious COVID-19 cases and systematically recorded the turnaround time of RT-PCR testing.MethodsSensitivity of RDT was determined using a serially diluted SARS-CoV-2 stock with known viral RNA concentration. The probability of detecting infectious virus at a given viral load was calculated using logistic regression of viral RNA concentration and matched culture results of 78 specimens from randomly selected non-hospitalised cases. The probability of each RDT to detect infectious cases was calculated as the sum of the projected probabilities for viral isolation success for every viral RNA load found at the time of diagnosis in 1,739 confirmed non-hospitalised COVID-19 cases.ResultsThe distribution of quantification cycle values and estimated RNA loads for patients reporting to drive-through testing was skewed to high RNA loads. With the most sensitive RDT (Abbott and SD Biosensor), 97.30% (range: 88.65-99.77) of infectious individuals would be detected. This decreased to 92.73% (range: 60.30-99.77) for Coris BioConcept and GenBody, and 75.53% (range: 17.55-99.77) for RapiGEN. Only 32.9% of RT-PCR results were available on the same day as specimen collection.ConclusionThe most sensitive RDT detected infectious COVID-19 cases with high sensitivity and may considerably improve containment through more rapid isolation and contact tracing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0260894, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1623649

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Performance of the SD Biosensor saliva antigen rapid test was evaluated at a large designated testing site in non-hospitalized patients, with or without symptoms. METHOD: All eligible people over 18 years of age presenting for a booked appointment at the designated SARS-CoV-2 testing site were approached for inclusion and enrolled following verbal informed consent. One nasopharyngeal swab was taken to carry out the default antigen rapid test from which the results were reported back to the patient and one saliva sample was self-taken according to verbal instruction on site. This was used for the saliva antigen rapid test, the RT-PCR and for virus culture. Sensitivity of the saliva antigen rapid test was analyzed in two ways: i, compared to saliva RT-PCR; and ii, compared to virus culture of the saliva samples. Study participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire stating age, sex, date of symptom onset. Recommended time of ≥30mins since last meal, drink or cigarette if applicable was also recorded. The study was carried out in February-March 2021 for 4 weeks. RESULTS: We could include 789 people with complete records and results. Compared to saliva RT-PCR, overall sensitivity and specificity of the saliva antigen rapid test was 66.1% and 99.6% which increased to 88.6% with Ct ≤30 cutoff. Analysis by days post onset did not result in higher sensitivities because the large majority of people were in the very early phase of disease ie <3 days post onset. When breaking down the data for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity ranged from 69.2% to 50% respectively, however the total number of RT-PCR positive asymptomatic participants was very low (n = 5). Importantly, almost all culture positive samples were detected by the rapid test. CONCLUSION: Overall, the potential benefits of saliva antigen rapid test, could outweigh the lower sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal antigen rapid test in a comprehensive testing strategy, especially for home/self-testing and in vulnerable populations like elderly, disabled or children where in intrusive testing is either not possible or causes unnecessary stress.


Subject(s)
Biosensing Techniques/methods , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Saliva/virology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/etiology , Carrier State/virology , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
5.
Int J Infect Dis ; 109: 24-32, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1272475

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To obtain insight into SARS-CoV-2 clustering and transmission routes during outbreaks in the predominantly migrant workforce of the fruit and vegetable packaging industry of South Holland, the Netherlands, May to July 2020. DESIGN: This mixed-methods study applied direct observation and interviews, epidemiologic investigation, source and contact data analysis and whole-genome sequencing. RESULTS: We detected 46 SARS-CoV-2 cases and 4 outbreaks with a proportional representation of labour migrant and native workers in 6 unrelated facilities. Complete viral genome sequences revealed at least 3 clusters of native workers and labour migrants, 2 within and 1 between facilities. On-site inspections found adequate implementation of preventative measures to which both native workers and labour migrants showed suboptimal adherence. Being a labour migrant was associated with living in shared housing, but not with more contacts or different sources. CONCLUSIONS: The fruit and vegetable packaging industry gave the impression of sufficient preparedness and control. Suboptimal adherence to the facilities' preventative guidelines could have facilitated work floor transmission. Community and household transmission are likely to have contributed to outbreaks. We encourage further research into risk factors for transmission in labour migrants and application of these insights into targeted public health policy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Transients and Migrants , Cluster Analysis , Disease Outbreaks , Fruit , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Vegetables
6.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(5): 1323-1329, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1136430

ABSTRACT

Rapid detection of infection is essential for stopping the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The Roche SD Biosensor rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated in a nonhospitalized symptomatic population. We rapid-tested a sample onsite and compared results with those from reverse transcription PCR and virus culture. We analyzed date of onset and symptoms using data from a clinical questionnaire. Overall test sensitivity was 84.9% (95% CI 79.1-89.4) and specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.7-99.8). Sensitivity increased to 95.8% (95% CI 90.5-98.2) for persons who sought care within 7 days of symptom onset. Test band intensity and time to result correlated strongly with viral load; thus, strong positive results could be read before the recommended time. Approximately 98% of all viable specimens with cycle threshold <30 were detected. Rapid antigen tests can detect symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in the early phase of disease, thereby identifying the most infectious persons.


Subject(s)
Biosensing Techniques , COVID-19 , Health Services , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL