Efficiency analysis of rapid antigen test based SARS-CoV-2 in hospital contact tracing and screening regime: test characteristics and cost effectiveness.

In the context of the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, reliable and cost-efficient screening and testing strategies are crucial to prevent disease transmission and reduce socioeconomic losses. To assess the efficiency of a rapid antigen test (RAT)-based SARS-CoV-2 contact-tracing and screening regime, we conducted a retrospective analysis of RAT and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test data over a 1-year period, assessed test characteristics and estimated cost-effectiveness. The RAT had a sensitivity of 70.2% overall and 89.3% for people with a high risk of infectivity. We estimated inpatient treatment and quarantined healthcare worker costs of over € 5860.83, whereas the cost of identifying one SARS-CoV-2 positive person by RAT for our patient cohort was € 1210.75. In contrast, the estimated respective PCR cost was € 5043.32. Therefore, a RAT-based contract tracing and screening regime may be an efficient and cost-effective way to contribute to the early identification and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Development of a web-based contact tracing and point-of-care-testing workflow for SARS-CoV-2 at a German University Hospital.

INTRODUCTION: In late 2019, a novel coronavirus was detected in China. Supported by its respiratory transmissibility, even by people infected without symptomatic disease, this coronavirus soon began to rapidly spread worldwide. BACKGROUND: Many countries have implemented different infection control and containment strategies due to ongoing community transmission. In this context, contact tracing as well as adequate testing and consequent quarantining of high-risk contacts play leading roles in containing the virus by interrupting infection chains. This approach is especially important in the hospital setting where contacts often cannot be avoided and physical distance is usually not possible. Furthermore, health care workers (HCWs) usually have contact with a variety of vulnerable people, making it essential to identify infections among hospital employees as soon as possible to interrupt the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the facility. Several electronic tools for contact tracing, such as specific software or mobile phone apps, are available for the public health sector. In contrast, contact tracing in hospitals often has to be carried out without helpful electronic tools, and an enormous amount of human resources is typically required. AIM: For rapid contact tracing and effective infection control and management measures for HCWs in hospitals, adapted technical solutions are needed. METHODS: In this study, we report the development of our containment strategy to a web-based contact tracing and rapid point-of-care-testing workflow. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Our workflow yielded efficient control of the rapidly evolving situation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from May 2020 until January 2021 at a German University Hospital.

Medical face masks offer self-protection against aerosols: An evaluation using a practical in vitro approach on a dummy head.

Since the appearance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the question regarding the efficacy of various hygiene measures and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has become the focus of scientific and above all public discussion. To compare respirators, medical face masks, and cloth masks and determine if it is recommendable to wear face masks to protect the individual wearer of the mask from inhaling airborne particles, we challenged 29 different masks with aerosols and tested the pressure drop as a surrogate for breathing resistance owing to the mask material. We found that Type II medical face masks showed the lowest pressure drop (12.9±6.8 Pa/cm2) and therefore additional breathing resistance, whereas respirators such as the KN95 (32.3±7.0 Pa/cm2) and FFP2 (26.8±7.4 Pa/cm2) showed the highest pressure drops among the tested masks. The filtration efficacy of the mask material was the lowest for cloth masks (28±25%) followed by non-certified face masks (63±19%) and certified medical face masks (70±10%). The materials of the different respirators showed very high aerosol retentions (KN95 [94±4%] and FFP2 [98±1%]). For evaluating the as-worn filtration performance simulating real live conditions each mask type was also tested on a standardized dummy head. Cloth masks and non-EN-certified face masks had the worst as-worn filtration efficacies among the tested masks, filtering less than 20% of the test aerosol. Remarkably, certified type II medical face masks showed similar (p>0.5) as-worn filtration results (47±20%) than KN95 masks (41±4%) and FFP2 masks (65±27%), despite having a lower pressure drop. Face shields did not show any significant retention function against aerosols in our experiment. Our results indicate that it seems recommendable to wear face masks for providing base protection and risk reduction against inhaling airborne particles, in low-risk situations. In our study, especially EN 14683 type II certified medical face masks showed protective effectiveness against aerosols accompanied by minimal additional breathing resistance. FFP2 Respirators, on the other hand, could be useful in high-risk situations but require greater breathing effort and therefore physical stress for users.