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.

Influence of public health and infection control interventions during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic on the in-hospital epidemiology of pathogens: in hospital versus community circulating pathogens.

BACKGROUND: The first detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Germany was reported in early February 2020. In addition, extensive control measures on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been placed in Germany since March 2020. These include contact and travel restrictions, distance rules, mandatory wearing of face masks and respirators, cancellation of mass events, closures of day-care centers, schools, restaurants and shops, isolation measures, and intensified infection control measures in medical and long-term care facilities. Changes in demand or access to health care services and intensified control measures can lead to changes in transmission dynamics and imply effects on the overall occurrence of infectious diseases in hospitals. METHODS: To analyze the impact of infection control measures implemented in public on infectious diseases in hospitals, surveillance data from Marburg University Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. The analysis was conducted from January 2019 to June 2021, referred to hospital occupancy and mobility data in the county of Marburg-Biedenkopf, and correlated to control measures in hospitals and the general population. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated measures immediately impacted the occurrence of infectious diseases at the Marburg University Hospital. Significant changes were detected for virus-associated respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases. The massive drop in norovirus infections was significantly affected by the onset of the pandemic (P = 0.028). Similar effects were observed for rotavirus (up to - 89%), respiratory syncytial virus (up to - 98%), and adenovirus infections (up to - 90%). The decrease in gastrointestinal and respiratory virus detection rates was significantly affected by the decline in mobility (P < 0.05). Of note, since April 2020, there have been no detected influenza cases. Furthermore, Clostridioides difficile-related infections declined after late 2020 (- 44%). In contrast, no significant changes were detected in the prevalence of susceptible and drug-resistant bacterial pathogens. In particular, the detection rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates or multidrug resistant (MDR) and extended drug resistant (XDR) bacteria remained constant, although the consumption of hand disinfectants and protective equipment increased. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures had a significant impact on infectious diseases and the detection of pathogens at the Marburg University Hospital. Significant changes were observed for community transmissible infections, while no such effects on pathogens primarily associated with nosocomial transmission could be detected.

High Level Bioaerosol Protection against Infective Aerosols: How Medical Face Masks Compare against Respirators.

Face masks and respirators are commonly used to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases that spread by respiratory droplets and aerosols. However, there is still uncertainty about the protective effect of the different types of masks against virus containing aerosols. To determine the as-worn bioaerosol protection efficacy of different face coverings and estimate the possible protective function against airborne diseases, we challenged different respirators and medical masks on a standardized dummy head with a bioaerosol containing MS2 bacteriophages as virus surrogates. In our experiments, FFP2 respirators showed the highest filtration efficacy 94 ± 4 (SD) % followed by medical masks 93 ± 3 (SD) % and KN95 respirators 90 ± 7 (SD) %. Nevertheless, we found no statistically significant difference between respirators and medical masks in terms of provided protection against infective aerosols. Our findings indicate that both respirators and medical masks provide a high as-worn bioaerosol protection efficacy against virus containing aerosols, and therefore, a very high protection against airborne diseases. Considering the higher comfort, better availability, and lower price of medical masks in contrast to respirators, it is recommendable to use medical face masks especially in low risk situations and in general public.

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.