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
BackgroundSchool-based COVID-19 contacts in England are asked to self-isolate at home. However, this has led to large numbers of missed school days. Therefore, we trialled daily testing of contacts as an alternative, to investigate if it would affect transmission in schools. MethodsWe performed an open-label cluster randomised controlled trial in students and staff from secondary schools and further education colleges in England (ISRCTN18100261). Schools were randomised to self-isolation of COVID-19 contacts for 10 days (control) or to voluntary daily lateral flow device (LFD) testing for school contacts with LFD-negative contacts remaining at school (intervention). Household contacts were excluded from participation. Co-primary outcomes in all students and staff were symptomatic COVID-19, adjusted for community case rates, to estimate within-school transmission (non-inferiority margin: <50% relative increase), and COVID-19-related school absence. Analyses were performed on an intention to treat (ITT) basis using quasi-Poisson regression, also estimating complier average causal effects (CACE). Secondary outcomes included participation rates, PCR results in contacts and performance characteristics of LFDs vs. PCR. FindingsOf 99 control and 102 intervention schools, 76 and 86 actively participated (19-April-2021 to 27-June-2021); additional national data allowed most non-participating schools to be included in the co-primary outcomes. 2432/5763(42.4%) intervention arm contacts participated. There were 657 symptomatic PCR-confirmed infections during 7,782,537 days-at-risk (59.1/100k/week) and 740 during 8,379,749 days-at-risk (61.8/100k/week) in the control and intervention arms respectively (ITT adjusted incidence rate ratio, aIRR=0.96 [95%CI 0.75-1.22;p=0.72]) (CACE-aIRR=0.86 [0.55-1.34]). There were 55,718 COVID-related absences during 3,092,515 person-school-days (1.8%) and 48,609 during 3,305,403 person-school-days(1.5%) in the control and intervention arms (ITT-aIRR=0.80 [95%CI 0.53-1.21;p=0.29]) (CACE-aIRR 0.61 [0.30-1.23]). 14/886(1.6%) control contacts providing an asymptomatic PCR sample tested positive compared to 44/2981(1.5%) intervention contacts (adjusted odds ratio, aOR=0.73 [95%CI 0.33-1.61;p=0.44]). Rates of symptomatic infection in contacts were 44/4665(0.9%) and 79/5955(1.3%), respectively (aOR=1.21 [0.82-1.79;p=0.34]). InterpretationDaily contact testing of school-based contacts was non-inferior to self-isolation for control of COVID-19 transmission. COVID-19 rates in school-based contacts in both intervention and control groups were <2%. Daily contact testing is a safe alternative to home isolation following school-based exposures.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe United States (US) Expanded Access Program (EAP) to COVID-19 convalescent plasma was initiated in response to the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). While randomized clinical trials were in various stages of development and enrollment, there was an urgent need for widespread access to potential therapeutic agents particularly for vulnerable racial and ethnic minority populations who were disproportionately affected by the pandemic. The objective of this study is to report on the demographic, geographic, and chronological access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the US via the EAP. Methods and findingsMayo Clinic served as the central IRB for all participating facilities and any US physician could participate as local physician-principal investigator. Registration occurred through the EAP central website. Blood banks rapidly developed logistics to provide convalescent plasma to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Demographic and clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients in the EAP were summarized. Temporal trends in access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma were investigated by comparing daily and weekly changes in EAP enrollment in response to changes in infection rate on a state level. Geographical analyses on access to convalescent plasma included assessing EAP enrollment in all national hospital referral regions as well as assessing enrollment in metropolitan and less populated areas which did not have access to COVID-19 clinical trials. From April 3 to August 23, 2020, 105,717 hospitalized patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 were enrolled in the EAP. A majority of patients were older than 60 years of age (57.8%), male (58.4%), and overweight or obese (83.8%). There was substantial inclusion of minorities and underserved populations, including 46.4% of patients with a race other than White, and 37.2% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity. Severe or life-threatening COVID-19 was present in 61.8% of patients and 18.9% of patients were mechanically ventilated at time of convalescent plasma infusion. Chronologically and geographically, increases in enrollment in the EAP closely followed confirmed infections across all 50 states. Nearly all national hospital referral regions enrolled patients in the EAP, including both in metropolitan and less populated areas. ConclusionsThe EAP successfully provided widespread access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma in all 50 states, including for underserved racial and ethnic minority populations. The efficient study design of the EAP may serve as an example framework for future efforts when broad access to a treatment is needed in response to a dynamic disease affecting demographic groups and areas historically underrepresented in clinical studies.
RESUMO
Treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have attempted to harness the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) including the development of successful COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics (e.g., Remdesivir, convalescent plasma [CP]). Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 exists as quasispecies evolving locally suggests that immunological differences may exist that could impact the effectiveness of antibody-based treatments and vaccines. Regional variants of SARS-CoV-2 were reported in the USA beginning in November 2020 but were likely present earlier. There is available evidence that the effectiveness of CP obtained from donors infected with earlier strains in the pandemic may be reduced when tested for neutralization against newer SARS-Cov-2 variants. Using data from the Expanded Access Program to convalescent plasma, we used a gradient-boosting machine to identify predictors of 30-day morality and a series of regression models to estimate the relative risk of death at 30 days post-transfusion for those receiving near sourced plasma (defined as plasma transported [≤] 150 miles) vs. distantly sourced plasma (> 150 miles). Our results show a lower risk of death at 30 days post-transfusion for near sourced plasma. Additional analyses stratified by disease severity, time to treatment, and donor region further supported these findings. The results of this study suggest that near sourced plasma is superior to distantly sourced plasma, which has implications for interpreting the results of clinical studies and designing effective treatment of COVID-19 patients as additional local variant are likely to emerge.