A statistical model of COVID-19 testing in populations: effects of sampling bias andtesting errors.

We develop a statistical model for the testing of disease prevalence in a population. The model assumes a binary test result, positive or negative, but allows for biases in sample selection and both type I (false positive) and type II (false negative) testing errors. Our model also incorporates multiple test types and is able to distinguish between retesting and exclusion after testing. Our quantitative framework allows us to directly interpret testing results as a function of errors and biases. By applying our testing model to COVID-19 testing data and actual case data from specific jurisdictions, we are able to estimate and provide uncertainty quantification of indices that are crucial in a pandemic, such as disease prevalence and fatality ratios. This article is part of the theme issue 'Data science approach to infectious disease surveillance'.

Evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 screening strategy based on serological tests.

BACKGROUND: facing the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic requires intensive testing on the population to early identify and isolate infected subjects. Although RT-PCR is the most reliable technique to detect ongoing infections, serological tests are frequently proposed as tools in heterogeneous screening strategies. OBJECTIVES: to analyse the performance of a screening strategy proposed by the local government of Tuscany (Central Italy), which first uses qualitative rapid tests for antibody detection, and then RT-PCR tests on the positive subjects. METHODS: a simulation study is conducted to investigate the number of RT-PCR tests required by the screening strategy and the undetected ongoing infections in a pseudo-population of 500,000 subjects, under different prevalence scenarios and assuming a sensitivity of the serological test ranging from 0.50 to 0.80 (specificity 0.98). A compartmental model is used to predict the number of new infections generated by the false negatives two months after the screening, under different values of the infection reproduction number. RESULTS: assuming a sensitivity equal to 0.80 and a prevalence of 0.3%, the screening procedure would require on average 11,167 RT-PCR tests and would produce 300 false negatives, responsible after two months of a number of contagions ranging from 526 to 1,132, under the optimistic scenario of a reproduction number between 0.5 to 1. Resources and false negatives increase with the prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: the analysed screening procedure should be avoided unless the prevalence and the rate of contagion are very low. The cost and effectiveness of the screening strategies should be evaluated in the actual context of the epidemic, accounting for the fact that it may change over time.

SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow tests for detecting infectious people: linked data analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the proportion of lateral flow tests (LFTs) that produce negative results in those with a high risk of infectiousness from SARS-CoV-2, to investigate the impact of the stage and severity of disease, and to compare predictions made by influential mathematical models with findings of empirical studies. DESIGN: Linked data analysis combining empirical evidence of the accuracy of the Innova LFT, the probability of positive viral culture or transmission to secondary cases, and the distribution of viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals in different settings. SETTING: Testing of individuals with symptoms attending NHS Test-and-Trace centres across the UK, residents without symptoms attending municipal mass testing centres in Liverpool, and students without symptoms screened at the University of Birmingham. PARTICIPANTS: Evidence for the sensitivity of the Innova LFT, based on 70 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 and LFT results. Infectiousness was based on viral culture rates on 246 samples (176 people with SARS-CoV-2) and secondary cases among 2 474 066 contacts; distributions of cycle threshold (Ct) values from 231 497 index individuals attending NHS Test-and-Trace centres; 70 people with SARS-CoV-2 detected in Liverpool and 62 people with SARS-CoV-2 in Birmingham (54 imputed). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The predicted proportions who were missed by LFT and viral culture positive and missed by LFT and sources of secondary cases, in each of the three settings. Predictions were compared with those made by mathematical models. RESULTS: The analysis predicted that of those with a viral culture positive result, Innova would miss 20% attending an NHS Test-and-Trace centre, 29% without symptoms attending municipal mass testing, and 81% attending university screen testing without symptoms, along with 38%, 47%, and 90% of sources of secondary cases. In comparison, two mathematical models underestimated the numbers of missed infectious individuals (8%, 10%, and 32% in the three settings for one model, whereas the assumptions from the second model made it impossible to miss an infectious individual). Owing to the paucity of usable data, the inputs to the analyses are from limited sources. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of infectious people with SARS-CoV-2 missed by LFTs is substantial enough to be of clinical importance. The proportion missed varied between settings because of different viral load distributions and is likely to be highest in those without symptoms. Key models have substantially overestimated the sensitivity of LFTs compared with empirical data. An urgent need exists for additional robust well designed and reported empirical studies from intended use settings to inform evidence based policy.

Large-Scale Implementation of a Daily Rapid Antigen Testing Program in California for Detecting SARS-CoV-2.

Objectives. To evaluate a daily antigen testing program for health care personnel. Methods. We examined antigen testing results between December 13, 2020, and April 30, 2021, from 5 forensic psychiatric inpatient hospitals throughout California. Results. Among 471 023 antigen tests administered, 449 positives (0.0036% false positives) were detected. Conclusions. Antigen tests had low false-positive rates, high positive predictive value, and high levels of acceptability, important characteristics when considering their application in the community. Public Health Implications. Daily antigen testing was feasible and should be considered to reduce COVID-19 transmission. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(3):467-471. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306588).

Laser induced breakdown spectroscopy for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 immune response in plasma.

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic persists, methods that can quickly and reliably confirm infection and immune status is extremely urgently and critically needed. In this contribution we show that combining laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) with machine learning can distinguish plasma of donors who previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR from those who did not, with up to 95% accuracy. The samples were also analyzed by LIBS-ICP-MS in tandem mode, implicating a depletion of Zn and Ba in samples of SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects that inversely correlate with CN lines in the LIBS spectra.

Diagnostic accuracy of three commercially available one step RT-PCR assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in resource limited settings.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is an ongoing public health pandemic regardless of the countless efforts made by various actors. Quality diagnostic tests are important for early detection and control. Notably, several commercially available one step RT-PCR based assays have been recommended by the WHO. Yet, their analytic and diagnostic performances have not been well documented in resource-limited settings. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of three commercially available one step reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays in Ethiopia in clinical setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from April to June, 2021 on 279 respiratory swabs originating from community surveillance, contact cases and suspect cases. RNA was extracted using manual extraction method. Master-mix preparation, amplification and result interpretation was done as per the respective manufacturer. Agreements between RT-PCRs were analyzed using kappa values. Bayesian latent class models (BLCM) were fitted to obtain reliable estimates of diagnostic sensitivities, specificities of the three assays and prevalence in the absence of a true gold standard. RESULTS: Among the 279 respiratory samples, 50(18%), 59(21.2%), and 69(24.7%) were tested positive by TIB, Da An, and BGI assays, respectively. Moderate to substantial level of agreement was reported among the three assays with kappa value between 0 .55 and 0.72. Based on the BLCM relatively high specificities (95% CI) of 0.991(0.973-1.000), 0.961(0.930-0.991) and 0.916(0.875-0.952) and considerably lower sensitivities with 0.813(0.658-0.938), 0.836(0.712-0.940) and 0.810(0.687-0.920) for TIB MOLBIOL, Da An and BGI respectively were found. CONCLUSIONS: While all the three RT-PCR assays displayed comparable sensitivities, the specificities of TIB MOLBIOL and Da An were considerably higher than BGI. These results help adjust the apparent prevalence determined by the three RT-PCRs and thus support public health decisions in resource limited settings and consider alternatives as per their prioritization matrix.

Efficacy of Fluorecare SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Test Kit for SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal samples of 121 individuals working in a manufacturing company.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the Fluorecare SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Test Kit, a rapid immunochromatographic assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Moreover, we sought to point out the strategy adopted by a local company to lift the lockdown without leading to an increase in the number of COVID-19 cases, by performing a precise and timely health surveillance. METHODS: The rapid Fluorecare SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Test was performed immediately after sampling following the manufacturer's instructions. RT-PCRs were performed within 24 hours of specimen collection. A total amount of 253 nasopharyngeal samples from 121 individuals were collected between March 16 and April 2, 2021 and tested. RESULTS: Of 253 nasopharyngeal samples, 11 (9.1%) were positive and 242 (90.9%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR assays. The rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test's mean sensitivity and specificity were 84,6% (95% CI, 54.6-98.1%) and 100% (95% CI, 98.6-100%), respectively. Two false negative test results were obtained from samples with high RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct). CONCLUSION: Our study suggested that Fluorecare SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Test can be introduced into daily diagnostic practice, as its mean sensitivity and specificity follow the standards recommended by WHO and IFCC Task Force. In addition, we underlined how the strategy adopted by a local company to risk assessment and health surveillance was appropriate for infection containment. This real-life scenario gave us the possibility to experience potential approaches aimed to preserve public health and work activities.

The use of ultrasound in establishing COVID-19 infection as part of a trauma evaluation.

PURPOSE: The use of lung ultrasound for diagnosis of COVID-19 has emerged during the pandemic as a beneficial diagnostic modality due to its rapid availability, bedside use, and lack of radiation. This study aimed to determine if routine ultrasound (US) imaging of the lungs of trauma patients with COVID-19 infections who undergo extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (EFAST) correlates with computed tomography (CT) imaging and X-ray findings, as previously reported in other populations. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational feasibility study performed at two level 1 trauma centers. US, CT, and X-ray imaging were retrospectively reviewed by a surgical trainee and a board-certified radiologist to determine any correlation of imaging findings in patients with active COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: There were 53 patients with lung US images from EFAST available for evaluation and COVID-19 testing. The overall COVID-19 positivity rate was 7.5%. COVID-19 infection was accurately identified by one patient on US by the trainee, but there was a 15.1% false-positive rate for infection based on the radiologist examination. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the lung during EFAST cannot be used in the trauma setting to identify patients with active COVID-19 infection or to stratify patients as high or low risk of infection. This is likely due to differences in lung imaging technique and the presence of concomitant thoracic injury.

Differentials of SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA Re-positivity in Discharged COVID-19 Patients.

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly infectious RNA coronavirus responsible for the pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recent advances in virology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and clinical management of COVID-19 have contributed to the control and prevention of this disease, but re-positivity of SARS-CoV-2 in recovered COVID-19 patients has brought a new challenge for this worldwide anti-viral battle. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen is widely used in clinical diagnosis, but a positive RT-PCR result may be multifactorial, including false positive, SARS-CoV-2 RNA fragment shedding, reinfection of SARS-CoV-2, or re-activation of COVID-19. Re-infection of SARS-CoV-2 or re-activation of COVID-19 is an indicator of live viral carriers and isolation/treatment is needed, but SARS-CoV-2 RNA fragment shedding is not. SARS-CoV-2 RNA is recently reported to integrate into the host genome, but the far-reaching outcome is currently unclear. Therefore, it is critical for appropriate manipulation and prevention of COVID-19 to distinguish these causal factors of SARS-CoV-2 re-positivity. In this review article, we updated the current knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 re-positivity in discharged COVID-19 patients with a focus on re-infection and re-activation. We proposed a hypothetical flowchart for handling of the SARS-CoV-2 re-positive cases.

Analysis of the initial lot of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) real-time RT-PCR diagnostic panel.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designed, manufactured, and distributed the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The diagnostic panel targeted three viral nucleocapsid gene loci (N1, N2, and N3 primers and probes) to maximize sensitivity and to provide redundancy for virus detection if mutations occurred. After the first distribution of the diagnostic panel, state public health laboratories reported fluorescent signal in the absence of viral template (false-positive reactivity) for the N3 component and to a lesser extent for N1. This report describes the findings of an internal investigation conducted by the CDC to identify the cause(s) of the N1 and N3 false-positive reactivity. For N1, results demonstrate that contamination with a synthetic template, that occurred while the "bulk" manufactured materials were located in a research lab for quality assessment, was the cause of false reactivity in the first lot. Base pairing between the 3' end of the N3 probe and the 3' end of the N3 reverse primer led to amplification of duplex and larger molecules resulting in false reactivity in the N3 assay component. We conclude that flaws in both assay design and handling of the "bulk" material, caused the problems with the first lot of the 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. In addition, within this study, we found that the age of the examined diagnostic panel reagents increases the frequency of false positive results for N3. We discuss these findings in the context of improvements to quality control, quality assurance, and assay validation practices that have since been improved at the CDC.

The diagnostic performance of deep-learning-based CT severity score to identify COVID-19 pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of a deep-learning (DL)-based algorithm using chest computed tomography (CT) scans for the rapid diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as compared to the reference standard reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, data of COVID-19 suspected patients who underwent RT-PCR and chest CT examination for the diagnosis of COVID-19 were assessed. By quantifying the affected area of the lung parenchyma, severity score was evaluated for each lobe of the lung with the DL-based algorithm. The diagnosis was based on the total lung severity score ranging from 0 to 25. The data were randomly split into a 40% training set and a 60% test set. Optimal cut-off value was determined using Youden-index method on the training cohort. RESULTS: A total of 1259 patients were enrolled in this study. The prevalence of RT-PCR positivity in the overall investigated period was 51.5%. As compared to RT-PCR, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy on the test cohort were 39.0%, 80.2%, 68.0%, 55.0% and 58.9%, respectively. Regarding the whole data set, when adding those with positive RT-PCR test at any time during hospital stay or "COVID-19 without virus detection", as final diagnosis to the true positive cases, specificity increased from 80.3% to 88.1% and the positive predictive value increased from 68.4% to 81.7%. CONCLUSION: DL-based CT severity score was found to have a good specificity and positive predictive value, as compared to RT-PCR. This standardized scoring system can aid rapid diagnosis and clinical decision making. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: DL-based CT severity score can detect COVID-19-related lung alterations even at early stages, when RT-PCR is not yet positive.

In vivo kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its relationship with a person's infectiousness.

The within-host viral kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 infection and how they relate to a person's infectiousness are not well understood. This limits our ability to quantify the impact of interventions on viral transmission. Here, we develop viral dynamic models of SARS-CoV-2 infection and fit them to data to estimate key within-host parameters such as the infected cell half-life and the within-host reproductive number. We then develop a model linking viral load (VL) to infectiousness and show a person's infectiousness increases sublinearly with VL and that the logarithm of the VL in the upper respiratory tract is a better surrogate of infectiousness than the VL itself. Using data on VL and the predicted infectiousness, we further incorporated data on antigen and RT-PCR tests and compared their usefulness in detecting infection and preventing transmission. We found that RT-PCR tests perform better than antigen tests assuming equal testing frequency; however, more frequent antigen testing may perform equally well with RT-PCR tests at a lower cost but with many more false-negative tests. Overall, our models provide a quantitative framework for inferring the impact of therapeutics and vaccines that lower VL on the infectiousness of individuals and for evaluating rapid testing strategies.

Progression/remission of COVID-19: data-driven recommendations for repeating SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests.

AIMS: This short study was performed to better understand the time frame associated with changes in SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing and provide recommendations for repeat testing. Recommendations are useful as little guidance is available for repeat testing in patients being followed expectantly for changes in disease. METHODS: A review of laboratory data of tests for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was performed selecting patients who had changing results. Time between changes in test results was determined to provide guidance for repeat testing. RESULTS: The Interquartile Range (IQR) of data for patients who had a negative to positive change in laboratory testing (progression) was 6-16 days (median=9 days). The IQR of data for patients who had a positive to negative change in test results (remission) was 9-21 days (median=14 days). CONCLUSION: Because sampling of the nares or nasopharynx can be variable, repeat testing should be performed swiftly when symptomatic patients are negative. The data in this short study vary widely, so authors recommend repeat testing during a period of time associated with the IQR or median (see results above).

Deep Learning Algorithm for COVID-19 Classification Using Chest X-Ray Images.

Early diagnosis of the harmful severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), along with clinical expertise, allows governments to break the transition chain and flatten the epidemic curve. Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) offers quick results, chest X-ray (CXR) imaging is a more reliable method for disease classification and assessment. The rapid spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has triggered extensive research towards developing a COVID-19 detection toolkit. Recent studies have confirmed that the deep learning-based approach, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), provides an optimized solution for COVID-19 classification; however, they require substantial training data for learning features. Gathering this training data in a short period has been challenging during the pandemic. Therefore, this study proposes a new model of CNN and deep convolutional generative adversarial networks (DCGANs) that classify CXR images into normal, pneumonia, and COVID-19. The proposed model contains eight convolutional layers, four max-pooling layers, and two fully connected layers, which provide better results than the existing pretrained methods (AlexNet and GoogLeNet). DCGAN performs two tasks: (1) generating synthetic/fake images to overcome the challenges of an imbalanced dataset and (2) extracting deep features of all images in the dataset. In addition, it enlarges the dataset and represents the characteristics of diversity to provide a good generalization effect. In the experimental analysis, we used four distinct publicly accessible datasets of chest X-ray images (COVID-19 X-ray, COVID Chest X-ray, COVID-19 Radiography, and CoronaHack-Chest X-Ray) to train and test the proposed CNN and the existing pretrained methods. Thereafter, the proposed CNN method was trained with the four datasets based on the DCGAN synthetic images, resulting in higher accuracy (94.8%, 96.6%, 98.5%, and 98.6%) than the existing pretrained models. The overall results suggest that the proposed DCGAN-CNN approach is a promising solution for efficient COVID-19 diagnosis.

Optimizing and evaluating PCR-based pooled screening during COVID-19 pandemics.

Population screening played a substantial role in safely reopening the economy and avoiding new outbreaks of COVID-19. PCR-based pooled screening makes it possible to test the population with limited resources by pooling multiple individual samples. Our study compared different population-wide screening methods as transmission-mitigating interventions, including pooled PCR, individual PCR, and antigen screening. Incorporating testing-isolation process and individual-level viral load trajectories into an epidemic model, we further studied the impacts of testing-isolation on test sensitivities. Results show that the testing-isolation process could maintain a stable test sensitivity during the outbreak by removing most infected individuals, especially during the epidemic decline. Moreover, we compared the efficiency, accuracy, and cost of different screening methods during the pandemic. Our results show that PCR-based pooled screening is cost-effective in reversing the pandemic at low prevalence. When the prevalence is high, PCR-based pooled screening may not stop the outbreak. In contrast, antigen screening with sufficient frequency could reverse the epidemic, despite the high cost and the large numbers of false positives in the screening process.

Evaluation of a saliva molecular point of care for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory care.

Rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals is a cornerstone for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. We conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Overall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% and 97%, respectively. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p = 0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference tests, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%. The detection of SARS-CoV-2 in crude saliva samples with an RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.Registration number: NCT04578509.