Emergence of the Delta Variant and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in secondary school students and staff: prospective surveillance in 18 schools, England (preprint)

Background The role of educational settings on SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission remains controversial. We investigated SARS-CoV-2 infection, seroprevalence and seroconversions rates in secondary schools during the 2020/21 academic year, which included the emergence of the more transmissible Alpha and Delta variants, in England. Methods The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) initiated prospective surveillance in 18 urban English secondary schools. Participants had nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and blood sampling for SARS-CoV-2 Nucleoprotein and Spike protein antibodies at the start (Round 1: September-October 2020) and end (Round 2: December 2021) of the autumn term, when schools reopened after national lockdown was imposed in January 2021 (Round 3: March-April) and end of the academic year (Round 4: May-July). Findings We enrolled 2,314 participants (1277 students, 1037 staff). In-school testing identified 31 PCR-positive participants (20 students, 11 staff). Another 247 confirmed cases (112 students, 135 staff) were identified after linkage with national surveillance data, giving an overall positivity rate of 12.0% (278/2313; staff [14.1%, 146/1037] vs students [10.3%, 132/1276; p=0.006). Nucleoprotein-antibody seroprevalence increased for students and staff between Rounds 1-3 but changed little in Round 4, when the Delta variant was the dominant circulating strain. Overall, Nucleoprotein-antibody seroconversion was 18.4% (137/744) in staff and 18.8% (146/778) in students, while Spike-antibody seroconversion was higher in staff (72.8% (525/721) than students (21.3%, 163/764) because of vaccination. Interpretation SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in secondary schools remained low when community infection rates were low because of national lockdown, even after the emergence of the Delta variant

SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection in human oral fluids (preprint)

Seroepidemiological studies to monitor antibody kinetics are important for assessing the extent and spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a population. Non-invasive sampling methods are advantageous to reduce the need for venepuncture, which may be a barrier to investigations particularly in paediatric populations. Oral Fluids are obtained by gingiva-crevicular sampling from children and adults and are very well accepted. ELISA based on these samples have acceptable sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional serum-based antibody ELISAs and are suitable for population-based surveillance. We describe the development and evaluation of SARS-COV-2 IgG ELISAs using SARS-CoV-2 viral nucleoprotein (NP) and spike (S) proteins in IgG isotype capture format and an indirect receptor-binding-domain (RBD) IgG ELISA, intended for use in children. All three assays were assessed using a panel of 1999 paired serum and oral fluids from children and adults participating in national primary school SARS-CoV-2 surveillance studies during and after the first and second pandemic wave in the UK. The anti NP IgG capture assay was the best candidate, with an overall sensitivity of 75% (95% CI: 71-79%) specificity of 99% (95% CI: 78-99%) when compared with paired serum antibodies measured using a commercial assay SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein IgG assay (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA). Higher sensitivity was observed in children (80%, 95% CI: 71-88%) compared to adults (67%, CI: 60%-74%). Oral fluid assays using spike protein and RBD antigens were also 99% specific and achieved reasonable but lower sensitivity in the target population (78%, 95% CI (68%-86%) and 53%, 95% CI (43%-64%), respectively). Conclusion statementOral Fluid assays based on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are a suitable tool for population based seroepidemiology studies in children.

Artificial intelligence driven assessment of routinely collected healthcare data is an effective screening test for COVID-19 in patients presenting to hospital (preprint)

The early clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection can be difficult to distinguish from other undifferentiated medical presentations to hospital, however viral specific real- time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing has limited sensitivity and can take up to 48 hours for operational reasons. In this study, we develop two early-detection models to identify COVID-19 using routinely collected data typically available within one hour (laboratory tests, blood gas and vital signs) during 115,394 emergency presentations and 72,310 admissions to hospital. Our emergency department (ED) model achieved 77.4% sensitivity and 95.7% specificity (AUROC 0.939) for COVID- 19 amongst all patients attending hospital, and Admissions model achieved 77.4% sensitivity and 94.8% specificity (AUROC 0.940) for the subset admitted to hospital. Both models achieve high negative predictive values (>99%) across a range of prevalences (<5%), facilitating rapid exclusion during triage to guide infection control. We prospectively validated our models across all patients presenting and admitted to a large UK teaching hospital group in a two-week test period, achieving 92.3% (n= 3,326, NPV: 97.6%, AUROC: 0.881) and 92.5% accuracy (n=1,715, NPV: 97.7%, AUROC: 0.871) in comparison to RT-PCR results. Sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in negative PCR results improves apparent accuracy (95.1% and 94.1%) and NPV (99.0% and 98.5%). Our artificial intelligence models perform effectively as a screening test for COVID-19 in emergency departments and hospital admission units, offering high impact in settings where rapid testing is unavailable.

Differential occupational risks to healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2: A prospective observational study (preprint)

Background Personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing are key measures designed to mitigate the risk of occupational SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitals. Why healthcare workers nevertheless remain at increased risk is uncertain. Methods We conducted voluntary Covid-19 testing programmes for symptomatic and asymptomatic staff at a large UK teaching hospital using nasopharyngeal PCR testing and immunoassays for IgG antibodies. A positive result by either modality was used as a composite outcome. Risk factors for Covid-19 were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. Results 1083/9809(11.0%) staff had evidence of Covid-19 at some time and provided data on potential risk-factors. Staff with a confirmed household contact were at greatest risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.63 [95%CI 3.30-6.50]). Higher rates of Covid-19 were seen in staff working in Covid-19-facing areas (21.2% vs. 8.2% elsewhere) (aOR 2.49 [2.00-3.12]). Controlling for Covid-19-facing status, risks were heterogenous across the hospital, with higher rates in acute medicine (1.50 [1.05-2.15]) and sporadic outbreaks in areas with few or no Covid-19 patients. Covid-19 intensive care unit (ICU) staff were relatively protected (0.46 [0.29-0.72]). Positive results were more likely in Black (1.61 [1.20-2.16]) and Asian (1.58 [1.34-1.86]) staff, independent of role or working location, and in porters and cleaners (1.93 [1.25-2.97]). Contact tracing around asymptomatic staff did not lead to enhanced case identification. 24% of staff/patients remained PCR-positive at [≥]6 weeks post-diagnosis. Conclusions Increased Covid-19 risk was seen in acute medicine, among Black and Asian staff, and porters and cleaners. A bundle of PPE-related interventions protected staff in high-risk ICU areas.