• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Clin Infect Dis . Optimising Benefits of Testing Key Workers for Infection With SARS-CoV-2: A Mathematical Modelling Analysis

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Infect Dis


. 2020 Jul 8;ciaa901.
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa901. Online ahead of print.
Optimising Benefits of Testing Key Workers for Infection With SARS-CoV-2: A Mathematical Modelling Analysis


Frank G Sandmann[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Peter J White[SUP] 1 3 [/SUP], Mary Ramsay[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Mark Jit[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: Internationally, key workers such as healthcare staff are advised to stay at home if they or household members experience coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-like symptoms. This potentially isolates / quarantines many staff without SARS-CoV-2, whilst not preventing transmission from staff with asymptomatic infection. We explored the impact of testing staff on absence durations from work and transmission risks to others.
Methods: We used a decision-analytic model for 1,000 key workers to compare the baseline strategy of (S0) no RT-PCR testing of workers to testing workers (S1) with COVID-19-like symptoms in isolation, (S2) without COVID-19-like symptoms but in household-quarantine, and (S3) all staff. We explored confirmatory re-testing scenarios of repeating all initial tests, initially-positive tests, initially-negative tests; or no re-testing. We varied all parameters, including the infection rate (0.1%-20%), proportion asymptomatic (10%-80%), sensitivity (60%-95%), and specificity (90%-100%).
Results: Testing all staff (S3) changes the risk of workplace transmission by -56.9 to +1.0 workers per 1,000 tests (with reductions throughout at RT-PCR sensitivity of ≥65%), and absences by 0.5 to +3.6 days per test but at heightened testing needs of 989.6-1995.9 tests per 1,000 workers. Testing workers in household-quarantine (S2) reduces absences the most by 3.0-6.9 days per test (at 47.0-210.4 tests per 1,000 workers), while increasing risk of workplace transmission by 0.02-49.5 infected workers per 1,000 tests (which can be minimised when re-testing initially-negative tests).
Discussion: Based on optimising absence durations or transmission risk our modelling suggests testing staff in household-quarantine or all staff, depending on infection levels and testing capacities.

Keywords: COVID-19; RT-PCR; SARS-CoV-2; isolation; modelling; testing.
 
Back
Top Bottom