Evaluation of a novel university-based testing platform to increase access to SARS-CoV-2 testing during the COVID-19 pandemic in a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and utility of an unsupervised testing mechanism, in which participants pick up a swab kit, self-test (unsupervised) and return the kit to an on-campus drop box, as compared with supervised self-testing at staffed locations. DESIGN: University SARS-CoV-2 testing cohort. SETTING: Husky Coronavirus Testing provided voluntary SARS-CoV-2 testing at a university in Seattle, USA. OUTCOME MEASURES: We computed descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of the study sample. Adjusted logistic regression implemented via generalised estimating equations was used to estimate the odds of a self-swab being conducted through unsupervised versus supervised testing mechanisms by participant characteristics, including year of study enrolment, pre-Omicron versus post-Omicron time period, age, sex, race, ethnicity, affiliation and symptom status. RESULTS: From September 2021 to July 2022, we received 92 499 supervised and 26 800 unsupervised self-swabs. Among swabs received by the laboratory, the overall error rate for supervised versus unsupervised swabs was 0.3% vs 4%, although this declined to 2% for unsupervised swabs by the spring of the academic year. Results were returned for 92 407 supervised (5% positive) and 25 836 unsupervised (4%) swabs from 26 359 participants. The majority were students (79%), 61% were female and most identified as white (49%) or Asian (34%). The use of unsupervised testing increased during the Omicron wave when testing demand was high and stayed constant in spring 2022 even when testing demand fell. We estimated the odds of using unsupervised versus supervised testing to be significantly greater among those <25 years of age (p<0.001), for Hispanic versus non-Hispanic individuals (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.3, p=0.01) and lower among individuals symptomatic versus asymptomatic or presymptomatic (0.9, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.9, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised swab collection permitted increased testing when demand was high, allowed for access to a broader proportion of the university community and was not associated with a substantial increase in testing errors.

Comparative diagnostic utility of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen and molecular testing in a community setting.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have become widely utilized but longitudinal characterization of their community-based performance remains incompletely understood. METHODS: This prospective longitudinal study at a large public university in Seattle, WA utilized remote enrollment, online surveys, and self-collected nasal swab specimens to evaluate Ag-RDT performance against real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) in the context of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron. Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity within 1 day of rRT-PCR were evaluated by symptom status throughout the illness episode and Orf1b cycle threshold (Ct). RESULTS: From February to December 2022, 5,757 participants reported 17,572 Ag-RDT results and completed 12,674 rRT-PCR tests, of which 995 (7.9%) were rRT-PCR-positive. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 53.0% (95% CI: 49.6-56.4%) and 98.8% (98.5-99.0%), respectively. Sensitivity was comparatively higher for Ag-RDTs used 1 day after rRT-PCR (69.0%), 4 to 7 days post-symptom onset (70.1%), and Orf1b Ct ≤20 (82.7%). Serial Ag-RDT sensitivity increased with repeat testing ≥2 (68.5%) and ≥4 (75.8%) days after an initial Ag-RDT-negative result. CONCLUSION: Ag-RDT performance varied by clinical characteristics and temporal testing patterns. Our findings support recommendations for serial testing following an initial Ag-RDT-negative result, especially among recently symptomatic persons or those at high-risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Utilizing a university testing program to estimate relative effectiveness of monovalent COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccine versus two-dose primary series against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies utilizing the test-negative design are typically conducted in clinical settings, rather than community populations, leading to bias in VE estimates against mild disease and limited information on VE in healthy young adults. In a community-based university population, we utilized data from a large SARS-CoV-2 testing program to estimate relative VE of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine primary series and monovalent booster dose versus primary series only against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection from September 2021 to July 2022. We used the test-negative design and logistic regression implemented via generalized estimating equations adjusted for age, calendar time, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and testing frequency (proxy for test-seeking behavior) to estimate relative VE. Analyses included 2,218 test-positive cases (59 % received monovalent booster dose) and 9,615 test-negative controls (62 %) from 9,066 individuals, with median age of 21 years, mostly students (71 %), White (56 %) or Asian (28 %), and with few comorbidities (3 %). More cases (23 %) than controls (6 %) had COVID-19-like illness. Estimated adjusted relative VE of primary series and monovalent booster dose versus primary series only against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 40 % (95 % CI: 33-47 %) during the overall analysis period and 46 % (39-52 %) during the period of Omicron circulation. Relative VE was greater for those without versus those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (41 %, 34-48 % versus 33 %, 9 %-52 %, P < 0.001). Relative VE was also greater in the six months after receiving a booster dose (41 %, 33-47 %) compared to more than six months (27 %, 8-42 %), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.06). In this relatively young and healthy adult population, an mRNA monovalent booster dose provided increased protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, overall and with the Omicron variant. University testing programs may be utilized for estimating VE in healthy young adults, a population that is not well-represented by routine VE studies.