RESUMO
BackgroundAntigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) have been widely used to control SARS-CoV-2. Changes in LFD sensitivity and detection of infectious individuals during the pandemic with successive variants, vaccination, and changes in LFD use are incompletely understood. MethodsPaired LFD and PCR tests were collected from asymptomatic and symptomatic participants, across multiple settings in the UK between 04-November-2020 and 21-March-2022. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse LFD sensitivity and specificity, adjusting for viral load, LFD manufacturer, setting, age, sex, assistance, symptoms, vaccination, and variant. National contact tracing data were used to estimate the proportion of transmitting index cases (with [≥]1 PCR/LFD-positive contact) potentially detectable by LFDs over time, accounting for viral load, variant, and symptom status. Findings4131/75,382 (5.5%) participants were PCR-positive. Sensitivity vs. PCR was 63.2% (95%CI 61.7-64.6%) and specificity 99.71% (99.66-99.74%). Increased viral load was independently associated with being LFD-positive. There was no evidence LFD sensitivity differed between Delta vs. Alpha/pre-Alpha infections, but Omicron infections were more likely to be LFD positive. Sensitivity was higher in symptomatic participants, 68.7% (66.9-70.4%) than in asymptomatic participants, 52.8% (50.1-55.4%). 79.4% (68.6-81.3%) of index cases resulting in probable onward transmission with were estimated to have been detectable using LFDs, this proportion was relatively stable over time/variants, but lower in asymptomatic vs. symptomatic cases. InterpretationLFDs remained able to detect most SARS-CoV-2 infections throughout vaccine roll-out and different variants. LFDs can potentially detect most infections that transmit to others and reduce risks. However, performance is lower in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic individuals. FundingUK Government. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSLateral flow devices (LFDs; i.e. rapid antigen detection devices) have been widely used for SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, due to their imperfect sensitivity when compared to PCR and a lack of a widely available gold standard proxy for infectiousness, the performance and use of LFDs has been a source of debate. We conducted a literature review in PubMed and bioRxiv/medRxiv for all studies examining the performance of lateral flow devices between 01 January 2020 and 31 October 2022. We used the search terms SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 and antigen/lateral flow test/lateral flow device. Multiple studies have examined the sensitivity and specificity of LFDs, including several systematic reviews. However, the majority of the studies are based on pre-Alpha infections. Large studies examining the test accuracy for different variants, including Delta and Omicron, and following vaccination are limited. Added value of this studyIn this large national LFD evaluation programme, we compared the performance of three different LFDs relative to PCR in various settings. Compared to PCR testing, sensitivity was 63.2% (95%CI 61.7-64.6%) overall, and 71.6% (95%CI 69.8-73.4%) in unselected communitybased testing. Specificity was 99.71% (99.66-99.74%). LFDs were more likely to be positive as viral loads increased. LFD sensitivity was similar during Alpha/pre-Alpha and Delta periods but increased during the Omicron period. There was no association between sensitivity and vaccination status. Sensitivity was higher in symptomatic participants, 68.7% (66.9-70.4%) than in asymptomatic participants, 52.8% (50.1-55.4%). Using national contact tracing data, we estimated that 79.4% (68.6-81.3%) of index cases resulting in probable onward transmission (i.e. with [≥]1 PCR/LFD-positive contact) were detectable using LFDs. Symptomatic index cases were more likely to be detected than asymptomatic index cases due to higher viral loads and better LFD performance at a given viral load. The proportion of index cases detected remained relatively stable over time and with successive variants, with a slight increase in the proportion of asymptomatic index cases detected during Omicron. Implications of all the available evidenceOur data show that LFDs detect most SARS-CoV-2 infections, with findings broadly similar to those summarised in previous meta-analyses. We show that LFD performance has been relatively consistent throughout different variant-dominant phases of the pandemic and following the roll-out of vaccination. LFDs can detect most infections that transmit to others and can therefore be used as part of a risk reduction strategy. However, performance is lower in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic individuals and this needs to be considered when designing testing programmes.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe sudden increase in COVID-19 admissions in hospitals during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic of 2020 has led to onward transmissions among vulnerable inpatients. AimsThis study was performed to evaluate the prevalence and clinical outcomes of Healthcare-associated COVID-19 infections (HA-COVID-19) during the 2020 epidemic and study factors which may promote or correlate with its incidence and transmission in a London Teaching Hospital Trust. MethodsElectronic laboratory, patient and staff self-reported sickness records were interrogated for the period 1st March to 18th April 2020. HA-COVID-19 was defined as symptom onset >14d of admission. Test performance of a single combined throat and nose swab (CTNS) for patient placement and the effect of delayed RNA positivity (DRP, defined as >48h delay) on patient outcomes was evaluated. The incidence of staff self-reported COVID-19 sickness absence, hospital bed occupancy, community incidence and DRP was compared HA-COVID-19. The incidence of other significant hospital-acquired bacterial infections (OHAI) was compared to previous years. Results58 HA-COVID-19 (7.1%) cases were identified. As compared to community-acquired cases, significant differences were observed in age (p=0.018), ethnicity (p<0.001) and comorbidity burden (p<0.001) but not in 30d mortality. CTNS negative predictive value was 60.3%. DRP was associated with greater mortality (p=0.034) and 34.5% HA-COVID-19 cases could be traced to delayed diagnosis in CA-COVID-19. Incidence of HA-COVID-19 correlated positively with DRP (R=0.7108) and staff sickness absence (R=0.7815). OHAI rates were similar to previous 2 years. ConclusionEarly diagnosis and isolation of COVID-19 would help reduce transmission. A single CTNS has limited value in segregating patients into positive and negative pathways.
