SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk for common group activities and settings: a living scoping review.

BACKGROUND: While the modes of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are well studied, the risk of transmission in various group settings or activities is less clear. This living scoping review aims to summarize the risk factors of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread in common group activities (e.g. social gatherings) or settings (e.g. schools, hospitals, shared workplaces) to understand the drivers of transmission and to inform a risk assessment profile tool for use of rapid antigen detection tests. METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases, MEDLINE and Embase, from January 2019 until February 2022. We included studies that evaluated the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in activities and settings, deemed strategically important to government departments in Ireland, provided by the Department of Health (Ireland) Expert Advisory Group on Rapid Testing. RESULTS: After screening 14 052 records, data from 139 studies were narratively synthesized. The risk was consistently reported as 'high' for large social events (e.g. weddings) and indoor sports, working in healthcare settings and shared workplaces, working/living in residential settings and travelling via public transportation. Most studies were from healthcare settings, with common risk factors including close contact with COVID-19 cases, working in high-risk departments and inappropriate use of personal protective equipment. For other settings and activities, lack of infection prevention and control practices reportedly contributed to infection transmission. CONCLUSION: The heterogeneity across studies and lack of direct information on dominant variants, preventive measures, vaccination coverage necessitates further research on transmission risk within group activities to inform infection prevention and control measures.

Performance of different rapid antigen testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2: A living rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) for SARS-CoV-2 testing offer several advantages over molecular tests, but there is little evidence supporting an ideal testing algorithm. We aimed to examine the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and the effectiveness of different RADT SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies. METHODS: Following PRISMA DTA guidance, we carried out a living rapid review and meta-analysis. Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL electronic databases until February 2022. Results were visualized using forest plots and included in random-effects univariate meta-analyses, where eligible. RESULTS: After screening 8010 records, 18 studies were included. Only one study provided data on incidence outcomes. Seventeen studies were DTA reports with direct comparisons of RADT strategies, using RT-PCR as the reference standard. Testing settings varied, corresponding to original SARS-CoV-2 or early variants. Strategies included differences in serial testing, the individual collecting swabs and swab sample locations. Overall, specificity remained high (>98%) across strategies. Although results were heterogeneous, the sensitivity for healthcare worker-collected samples was greater than for self-collected samples. Nasal samples had comparable sensitivity when compared to paired RADTs with nasopharyngeal samples, but sensitivity was much lower for saliva samples. The limited evidence for serial testing suggested higher sensitivity if RADTs were administered every 3 days compared to less frequent testing. CONCLUSIONS: Additional high-quality research is needed to confirm our findings; all studies were judged to be at risk of bias, with significant heterogeneity in sensitivity estimates. Evaluations of testing algorithms in real-world settings are recommended, especially for transmission and incidence outcomes.