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.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 BA.2.86 by lateral flow devices.

We evaluated the performance of 12 lateral flow devices by assessing their analytical sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 variant BA.2.86. Kits from ACON, Orient Gene, Xiamen Biotime, Getein, and SureScreen detected variant BA.2.86 to sufficient sensitivity levels, comparable to those observed with previous Omicron variants. The stocks of lateral flow devices currently held by the UK government do not currently need changing for deployment for this variant.

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.

High attack rate in a large care home outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 BA.2.86, East of England, August 2023.

We investigated an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 variant BA.2.86 in an East of England care home. We identified 45 infections (33 residents, 12 staff), among 38 residents and 66 staff. Twenty-nine of 43 PCR swabs were sequenced, all of which were variant BA.2.86. The attack rate among residents was 87%, 19 were symptomatic, and one was hospitalised. Twenty-four days after the outbreak started, no cases were still unwell. Among the 33 resident cases, 29 had been vaccinated 4 months earlier.

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.

Survey of advanced nuclear technologies for potential applications of sonoprocessing.

Ultrasonics has been used in many industrial applications for both sensing at low power and processing at higher power. Generally, the high power applications fall within the categories of liquid stream degassing, impurity separation, and sonochemical enhancement of chemical processes. Examples of such industrial applications include metal production, food processing, chemical production, and pharmaceutical production. There are many nuclear process streams that have similar physical and chemical processes to those applications listed above. These nuclear processes could potentially benefit from the use of high-power ultrasonics. There are also potential benefits to applying these techniques in advanced nuclear fuel cycle processes, and these benefits have not been fully investigated. Currently the dominant use of ultrasonic technology in the nuclear industry has been using low power ultrasonics for non-destructive testing/evaluation (NDT/NDE), where it is primarily used for inspections and for characterizing material degradation. Because there has been very little consideration given to how sonoprocessing can potentially improve efficiency and add value to important process streams throughout the nuclear fuel cycle, there are numerous opportunities for improvement in current and future nuclear technologies. In this paper, the relevant fundamental theory underlying sonoprocessing is highlighted, and some potential applications to advanced nuclear technologies throughout the nuclear fuel cycle are discussed.