Double testing with lateral flow antigen test devices for COVID-19: does a second test in quick succession add value?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We investigated if performing two lateral flow device (LFD) tests, LFD2 immediately after LFD1, could improve diagnostic sensitivity or specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen. STUDY DESIGN: Individuals aged ≥16 years attending UK community testing sites (February-May 2021) performed two successive LFD tests and provided a nose-and-throat sample for a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Using the PCR result as the reference diagnosis, we assessed whether improvements could be achieved in sensitivity (by counting a positive result in either LFD as a positive overall test result) or specificity (by using LFD2 as confirmatory test). RESULTS: Overall, 2231 participants were included with 159 (7 %) having a positive PCR test. Of 2223 participants who completed both LFD tests, LFD results were highly concordant both with each other and with PCR tests (>97 %). The proportion of discord LFD results decreased significantly over the study period. Combined LFD usage achieved a sensitivity of 68.6 %, versus 67.1 % for either LFD individually. The specificity increased from 99.5 % to 99.8 % when using LFD2 as confirmatory test. Observed increases in sensitivity and specificity were not statistically significant. Void results were recorded for 31 (1.4 %) LFD1s, 19 (0.9 %) LFD2s and 6 (0.3 %) combined LFD tests. CONCLUSIONS: LFD tests were highly reproducible even when they were performed by untrained users following only written instructions and without supervision. While performing two LFD tests of the same type in quick succession marginally increased sensitivity or specificity, statistically significant improvements were not detected in our study.

Self-swabbing versus assisted swabbing for viral detection by qRT-PCR: the experience from SARS-CoV-2 based on a meta-analysis of six prospectively designed evaluations conducted in a UK setting.

PURPOSE: In April 2020, the UK Government implemented NHS Test and Trace to provide SARS-CoV-2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) testing for the public, with nose-and-throat swabbing for samples performed by trained staff. Self-swabbing (SS) would allow rapid scale-up of testing capacity and access. Six studies were undertaken to determine whether SS was as effective for detecting SARS-CoV-2 as swabbing performed by trained staff. METHODS: Six prospective studies were conducted between April-October 2020, using six swab/media combinations. Differences between assisted swabbing (AS) and SS were evaluated for concordance, positivity, sensitivity, cycle threshold (Ct) values and void rates. Statistical analysis was performed using 95% confidence intervals (CIs), paired t-tests and model-based methods. RESULTS: Overall, 3,253 individuals were recruited (median age 37 years, 49% female), with 2,933 having valid paired qRT-PCR results. Pooled concordance rate was 98% (95% CI: 96%, 99%). Positivity rate differences for SS (8.1%) and AS (8.4%) and differences in pooled sensitivities between SS (86%; 95% CI: 78%, 92%) and AS (91%; 95% CI: 78%, 96%) were nonsignificant. Both types of swabbing led to pooled void rates below 2% and strongly correlated Ct values. Age, sex and previous swabbing experience did not have a significant impact on concordance or sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The UK adopted a policy to promote self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 based on data demonstrating equivalence of SS versus AS. Positive outcomes with SS are likely generalisable to testing for other respiratory pathogens, and we consider self-sampling and self-testing essential for future pandemic preparedness.

Faster detection of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases among care home staff in England through the combination of SARS-CoV-2 testing technologies.

To detect SARS-CoV-2 amongst asymptomatic care home staff in England, a dual-technology weekly testing regime was introduced on 23 December 2020. A lateral flow device (LFD) and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) test were taken on the same day (day 0) and a midweek LFD test was taken three to four days later. We evaluated the effectiveness of using dual-technology to detect SARS-CoV-2 between December 2020 to April 2021. Viral concentrations derived from qRT-PCR were used to determine the probable stage of infection and likely level of infectiousness. Day 0 PCR detected 1,493 cases of COVID-19, of which 53% were in the early stages of infection with little to no risk of transmission. Day 0 LFD detected 83% of cases that were highly likely to be infectious. On average, LFD results were received 46.3 h earlier than PCR, enabling removal of likely infectious staff from the workplace quicker than by weekly PCR alone. Demonstrating the rapidity of LFDs to detect highly infectious cases could be combined with the ability of PCR to detect cases in the very early stages of infection. In practice, asymptomatic care home staff were removed from the workplace earlier, breaking potential chains of transmission.

Rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow assay: A field evaluation of self- and professional testing at UK community testing sites.

BACKGROUND: The advent of lateral flow devices (LFDs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection enabled widespread use of rapid self-tests during the pandemic. While self-testing using LFDs is now common, whether self-testing provides comparable performance to professional testing was a key question that remained important for pandemic planning. METHODS: Three prospective multi-centre studies were conducted to compare the performance of self- and professional testing using LFDs. Participants tested themselves or were tested by trained (professional) testers at community testing sites in the UK. Corresponding qRT-PCR test results served as reference standard. The performance of Innova, Orient Gene and SureScreen LFDs by users (self) and professional testers was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and kit failure (void) rates. Impact of age, sex and symptom status was analysed using logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: 16,617 participants provided paired tests, of which 15,418 were included in the analysis. Self-testing with Innova, Orient Gene or SureScreen LFDs achieved sensitivities of 50 %, 53 % or 72 %, respectively, compared to qRT-PCR. Self and professional LFD testing showed no statistically different sensitivity with respect to corresponding qRT-PCR testing. Specificity was consistently equal to or higher than 99 %. Sex and age had no or only marginal impact on LFD performance while sensitivity was significantly higher for symptomatic individuals. Sensitivity of LFDs increased strongly to up to 90 % with higher levels of viral RNA measured by qRT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support SARS-CoV-2 self-testing with LFDs, especially for the detection of individuals whose qRT-PCR tests showed high viral concentrations.

PCR testing of traced contacts for SARS-CoV-2 in England, January to July 2021.

BackgroundThe NHS Test and Trace (NHSTT) programme was established in May 2020 in England to deliver SARS-CoV-2 testing and contact tracing in order to identify infected individuals and reduce COVID-19 spread. To further control transmission, people identified as contacts were asked to self-isolate for 10 days and test only if they became symptomatic. From March 2021, eligibility criteria for PCR testing expanded to include asymptomatic contacts of confirmed cases.AimTo analyse testing patterns of contacts before and after the change in testing guidance in England to assess the impact on PCR testing behaviour with respect to symptom status and contact type.MethodsTesting and contact tracing data were extracted from the national data systems and linked. Subsequently, descriptive statistical analysis was applied to identify trends in testing behaviour.ResultsBetween 1 January and 31 July 2021, over 5 million contacts were identified and reached by contact tracers; 42.3% took a PCR test around the time they were traced. Overall positivity rate was 44.3% and consistently higher in symptomatic (60-70%) than asymptomatic (around 20%, March-June) contacts. The proportion of tests taken by asymptomatic contacts increased over time, especially after the change in testing guidance. No link was observed between uptake of PCR tests and vaccination coverage. Fully vaccinated contacts showed lower positivity (23.8%) than those with one dose (37.2%) or unvaccinated (51.0%).ConclusionAlmost 1 million asymptomatic contacts were tested for SARS-CoV-2, identifying 214,056 positive cases, demonstrating the value of offering PCR testing to this group.

The evaluation of a multi-day testing approach with antigen lateral flow devices for people eligible for community-based COVID-19 treatments.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 therapeutics including antiviral and monoclonal antibody treatments (hereafter 'COVID-19 treatments') require rapid administration to be effective. As part of the community-based antiviral and therapeutic treatment pathway for COVID-19 there has been a move from PCR testing in those eligible to a rapid antigen lateral flow testing regime. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a multi-day lateral flow device (LFD) testing regime is a feasible alternative to PCR for diagnosing symptomatic patients eligible for COVID-19 treatments. An LFD regime might return a positive result more quickly than a PCR and hence expedite access to COVID-19 treatments. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 with a combination of PCR and LFDs of symptomatic patients eligible for COVID-19 treatments. LFD testing patterns were not assigned. Patients self-censored and the patterns were retro-fitted to the observed results. RESULTS: The LFD testing patterns offered high sensitivity, close to 92%; however, the false positive rate also increased, with most of the multi-day testing patterns having a false positive rate greater than 3%. The highest sensitivity was seen among patients who tested with LFD on the same day as PCR. CONCLUSIONS: There were multiple observed testing behaviours. We conclude that multi-day LFD testing for COVID-19 provides a feasible alternative to PCR to in eligible patients, allowing swift prescription of COVID-19 treatments in most cases. This approach requires acceptance of a trade-off for a small increase in false-positive and -negative results.

Swab pooling enables rapid expansion of high-throughput capacity for SARS-CoV-2 community testing.

BACKGROUND: The challenges of rapid upscaling of testing capacity were a major lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic response. The need for process adjustments in high-throughput testing laboratories made sample pooling a challenging option to implement. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether pooling samples at source (swab pooling) was as effective as qRT-PCR testing of individuals in identifying cases of SARS-CoV-2 in real-world community testing conditions using the same high-throughput pipeline. METHODS: Two cohorts of 10 (Pool10: 1,030 participants and 103 pools) and 6 (Pool6: 1,284 participants and 214 pools) samples per pool were tested for concordance, sensitivity, specificity, and Ct value differences with individual testing as reference. RESULTS: Swab pooling allowed unmodified application of an existing high-throughput SARS-Cov-2 testing pipeline with only marginal loss of accuracy. For Pool10, concordance was 98.1% (95% Confidence interval: 93.3-99.8%), sensitivity was 95.7% (85.5-99.5%), and specificity was 100.0% (93.6-100.0%). For Pool6, concordance was 97.2% (94.0-99.0%), sensitivity was 97.5% (93.7-99.3%), and specificity was 96.4% (87.7-99.6%). Differences of outcomes measure between pool size were not significant. Most positive individual samples, which were not detected in pools, had very low viral concentration. If only individual samples with a viral concentration > 400 copies/ml (i.e. Ct value < 30) were considered positive, the overall sensitivity of pooling increased to 99.5%. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity by swab pooling and the immediate capability of high-throughput laboratories to implement this method making it an option in planning of rapid upscaling of laboratory capacity for future pandemics.

Performance of antigen lateral flow devices in the UK during the alpha, delta, and omicron waves of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a diagnostic and observational study.

BACKGROUND: Antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) have been widely used to control SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to improve understanding of LFD performance with changes in variant infections, vaccination, viral load, and LFD use, and in the detection of infectious individuals. METHODS: In this diagnostic study, paired LFD and RT-PCR test results were prospectively collected from asymptomatic and symptomatic participants in the UK between Nov 4, 2020, and March 21, 2022, to support the National Health Service (NHS) England's Test and Trace programme. The LFDs evaluated were the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, the Orient Gene Rapid Covid-19 (Antigen) Self-Test, and the Acon Flowflex SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test (Self-Testing). Test results were collected across various community testing settings, including predeployment testing sites, routine testing centres, homes, schools, universities, workplaces, targeted community testing, and from health-care workers. We used multivariable logistic regression to analyse LFD sensitivity and specificity using RT-PCR as a reference standard, adjusting for viral load, LFD manufacturer, test setting, age, sex, test assistance, symptom status, vaccination status, and SARS-CoV-2 variant. National contact tracing data from NHS Test and Trace (Jan 1, 2021, to Jan 11, 2022) were used to estimate the proportion of transmitting index patients (with ≥1 RT-PCR-positive or LFD-positive contact) potentially detectable by LFDs (specifically Innova, as the most widely used LFD) with time, accounting for index viral load, variant, and symptom status. FINDINGS: We assessed 75 382 pairs of LFD and RT-PCR tests. Of these, 4131 (5·5%) were RT-PCR-positive. LFD sensitivity versus RT-PCR was 63·2% (95% CI 61·7-64·6) and specificity was 99·71% (95% CI 99·66-99·74). Increased viral load was independently associated with being LFD positive (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2·85 [95% CI 2·66-3·06] per 1 log10 copies per mL increase; p<0·0001). There was no evidence that LFD sensitivity differed for delta (B.1.617.2) infections versus alpha (B.1.1.7) or pre-alpha (B.1.177) infections (aOR 1·00 [0·69-1·45]; p=0·99), whereas omicron (BA.1 or BA.2) infections appeared more likely to be LFD positive (aOR 1·63 [1·02-2·59]; p=0·042). Sensitivity was higher in symptomatic participants (68·7% [95% CI 66·9-70·4]) than in asymptomatic participants (52·8% [50·1-55·4]). Among 347 374 unique index patients with probable onward transmission, 78·3% (95% CI 75·3-81·2) were estimated to have been detectable with LFDs (Innova), and this proportion was mostly stable with time and for successive variants. Overall, the estimated proportion of infectious index patients detectable by the Innova LFD was lower in asymptomatic patients (57·6% [53·6-61·9]) versus symptomatic patients (79·7% [76·7-82·5]). INTERPRETATION: LFDs remained able to detect most SARS-CoV-2 infections throughout vaccine roll-out and across different viral variants. LFDs can potentially detect most infections that transmit to others and reduce the risk of transmission. However, performance is lower in asymptomatic individuals than in symptomatic individuals. FUNDING: UK Health Security Agency, the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, and the University of Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.

Daily testing for contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and attendance and SARS-CoV-2 transmission in English secondary schools and colleges: an open-label, cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: School-based COVID-19 contacts in England have been asked to self-isolate at home, missing key educational opportunities. We trialled daily testing of contacts as an alternative to assess whether this resulted in similar control of transmission, while allowing more school attendance. METHODS: We did an open-label, cluster-randomised, controlled trial in secondary schools and further education colleges in England. Schools were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-isolation of school-based COVID-19 contacts for 10 days (control) or to voluntary daily lateral flow device (LFD) testing for 7 days with LFD-negative contacts remaining at school (intervention). Randomisation was stratified according to school type and size, presence of a sixth form, presence of residential students, and proportion of students eligible for free school meals. Group assignment was not masked during procedures or analysis. Coprimary outcomes in all students and staff were COVID-19-related school absence and symptomatic PCR-confirmed COVID-19, adjusted for community case rates, to estimate within-school transmission (non-inferiority margin <50% relative increase). Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis using quasi-Poisson regression, also estimating complier average causal effects (CACE). This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN18100261. FINDINGS: Between March 18 and May 4, 2021, 204 schools were taken through the consent process, during which three decided not to participate further. 201 schools were randomly assigned (control group n=99, intervention group n=102) in the 10-week study (April 19-May 10, 2021), which continued until the pre-appointed stop date (June 27, 2021). 76 control group schools and 86 intervention group schools actively participated; additional national data allowed most non-participating schools to be included in analysis of coprimary outcomes. 2432 (42·4%) of 5763 intervention group contacts participated in daily contact testing. There were 657 symptomatic PCR-confirmed infections during 7 782 537 days-at-risk (59·1 per 100 000 per week) in the control group and 740 during 8 379 749 days-at-risk (61·8 per 100 000 per week) in the intervention group (intention-to-treat adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0·96 [95% CI 0·75-1·22]; p=0·72; CACE aIRR 0·86 [0·55-1·34]). Among students and staff, there were 59 422 (1·62%) COVID-19-related absences during 3 659 017 person-school-days in the control group and 51 541 (1·34%) during 3 845 208 person-school-days in the intervention group (intention-to-treat aIRR 0·80 [95% CI 0·54-1·19]; p=0·27; CACE aIRR 0·61 [0·30-1·23]). INTERPRETATION: Daily contact testing of school-based contacts was non-inferior to self-isolation for control of COVID-19 transmission, with similar rates of symptomatic infections among students and staff with both approaches. Infection rates in school-based contacts were low, with very few school contacts testing positive. Daily contact testing should be considered for implementation as a safe alternative to home isolation following school-based exposures. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Effect of telephone health coaching (Birmingham OwnHealth) on hospital use and associated costs: cohort study with matched controls.

OBJECTIVES: To test the effect of a telephone health coaching service (Birmingham OwnHealth) on hospital use and associated costs. DESIGN: Analysis of person level administrative data. Difference-in-difference analysis was done relative to matched controls. SETTING: Community based intervention operating in a large English city with industry. PARTICIPANTS: 2698 patients recruited from local general practices before 2009 with heart failure, coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and a history of inpatient or outpatient hospital use. These individuals were matched on a 1:1 basis to control patients from similar areas of England with respect to demographics, diagnoses of health conditions, previous hospital use, and a predictive risk score. INTERVENTION: Telephone health coaching involved a personalised care plan and a series of outbound calls usually scheduled monthly. Median length of time enrolled on the service was 25.5 months. Control participants received usual healthcare in their areas, which did not include telephone health coaching. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of emergency hospital admissions per head over 12 months after enrolment. Secondary metrics calculated over 12 months were: hospital bed days, elective hospital admissions, outpatient attendances, and secondary care costs. RESULTS: In relation to diagnoses of health conditions and other baseline variables, matched controls and intervention patients were similar before the date of enrolment. After this point, emergency admissions increased more quickly among intervention participants than matched controls (difference 0.05 admissions per head, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.09, P=0.046). Outpatient attendances also increased more quickly in the intervention group (difference 0.37 attendances per head, 0.16 to 0.58, P<0.001), as did secondary care costs (difference £175 per head, £22 to £328, P=0.025). Checks showed that we were unlikely to have missed reductions in emergency admissions because of unobserved differences between intervention and matched control groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Birmingham OwnHealth telephone health coaching intervention did not lead to the expected reductions in hospital admissions or secondary care costs over 12 months, and could have led to increases.

Case management for at-risk elderly patients in the English integrated care pilots: observational study of staff and patient experience and secondary care utilisation.

INTRODUCTION: In 2009, the English Department of Health appointed 16 integrated care pilots which aimed to provide better integrated care. We report the quantitative results from a multi-method evaluation of six of the demonstration projects which used risk profiling tools to identify older people at risk of emergency hospital admission, combined with intensive case management for people identified as at risk. The interventions focused mainly on delivery system redesign and improved clinical information systems, two key elements of Wagner's Chronic Care Model. METHODS: Questionnaires to staff and patients. Difference-in-differences analysis of secondary care utilisation using data on 3646 patients and 17,311 matched controls, and changes in overall secondary care utilisation. RESULTS: Most staff thought that care for their patients had improved. More patients reported having a care plan but they found it significantly harder to see a doctor or nurse of their choice and felt less involved in decisions about their care. Case management interventions were associated with a 9% increase in emergency admissions. We found some evidence of imbalance between cases and controls which could have biased this estimate, but simulations of the possible effect of unobserved confounders showed that it was very unlikely that the sites achieved their goal of reducing emergency admissions. However, we found significant reductions of 21% and 22% in elective admissions and outpatient attendance in the six months following an intervention, and overall inpatient and outpatient costs were significantly reduced by 9% during this period. Area level analyses of whole practice populations suggested that overall outpatient attendances were significantly reduced by 5% two years after the start of the case management schemes. CONCLUSION: Case management may result in improvements in some aspects of care and has the potential to reduce secondary care costs. However, to improve patient experience, case management approaches need to be introduced in a way which respects patients' wishes, for example the ability to see a familiar doctor or nurse.