PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Hellewell, Joel
AU  - Russell, Timothy W.
AU  - ,
AU  - ,
AU  - ,
AU  - Beale, Rupert
AU  - Kelly, Gavin
AU  - Houlihan, Catherine
AU  - Nastouli, Eleni
AU  - Kucharski, Adam J.
TI  - Estimating the effectiveness of routine asymptomatic PCR testing at different frequencies for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections
AID  - 10.1101/2020.11.24.20229948
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.11.24.20229948
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/24/2020.11.24.20229948.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/24/2020.11.24.20229948.full
AB  - Background Routine asymptomatic testing using RT-PCR of people who interact with vulnerable populations, such as medical staff in hospitals or care workers in care homes, has been employed to help prevent outbreaks among vulnerable populations. Although the peak sensitivity of RT-PCR can be high, the probability of detecting an infection will vary throughout the course of an infection. The effectiveness of routine asymptomatic testing will therefore depend on how testing and PCR detection varies over time.Methods We fitted a Bayesian statistical model to a dataset of twice weekly PCR tests of UK healthcare workers performed by self-administered nasopharyngeal swab, regardless of symptoms. We jointly estimated times of infection and the probability of a positive PCR test over time following infection, then compared asymptomatic testing strategies by calculating the probability that a symptomatic infection is detected before symptom onset and the probability that an asymptomatic infection is detected within 7 days of infection.Findings We estimated that the probability that the PCR test detected infection peaked at 77% (54 - 88%) 4 days after infection, decreasing to 50% (38 - 65%) by 10 days after infection. Our results suggest a substantially higher probability of detecting infections 1–3 days after infection than previously published estimates. We estimated that testing every other day would detect 57% (33-76%) of symptomatic cases prior to onset and 94% (75-99%) of asymptomatic cases within 7 days if test results were returned within a day.Interpretation Our results suggest that routine asymptomatic testing can enable detection of a high proportion of infected individuals early in their infection, provided that the testing is frequent and the time from testing to notification of results is sufficiently fast.Funding Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit, Medical Research Council (UKRI)Evidence before this study A number of studies have investigated the relationship between viral load of SARS-CoV-2 and the presence and severity of symptoms of COVID-19. Furthermore, a handful of studies have looked in detail at how the probability of detection by PCR varies over the course of an entire infection. We searched PubMed, BioRxiv, and MedRxiv for English-language articles with the search terms (“covid-19” OR “coronavirus” OR “SARS-CoV-2”) AND (“test” OR “detection” OR “PCR” OR “polymerase chain reaction” OR “RT-PCR” OR “reverse transcriptase” OR “swab” OR “antigen” OR “symptoms” OR “RNA”) AND (“regular” OR “widespread” OR “shedding” OR “health-care workers” OR “HCW” OR “regular”) AND (“asymptomatic” OR “pre-symptomatic” OR “exposure”). This search returned a total of 396 results, of which 21 were studies that either gathered similar data, i.e. symptom, antibody and PCR test data longitudinally, or they specifically investigated PCR sensitivity over the course of infection. Only one study directly attempted to fit a similar PCR positivity curve, but no study inferred unobserved infection times for individuals and used those estimates to jointly fit (across all individuals) the probability of a positive PCR test as a function of time since infection.Added value of this study Our study extends the existing literature in two specific ways. First we infer infection times for all individuals using a rigorous Bayesian framework and within our model we directly use the inferred posterior distributions of infection time to fit a curve across all individuals to characterise the probability of detection via PCR test over the course of infection. Because HCWs in our dataset were tested regardless of symptoms, many of these tests were performed close to the time of infection and therefore help to characterise our probability of detection estimates, in contrast to earlier datasets that only include tests performed as a result of symptom onset or hospitalisation. Second, we incorporated these estimates into a model of testing frequency to provide insights into the likely effectiveness of routine testing in settings like hospitals.Implications of all the available evidence Routine asymptomatic testing by PCR is being used in many settings with the aim of preventing outbreaks within vulnerable populations. We present evidence that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections can be detected prior to symptom onset (or within 7 days if there is no symptom onset) by a routine asymptomatic testing regime with a high enough testing frequency and short delay between testing and notification of cases. Therefore, routine asymptomatic testing regimes can be calibrated using our findings to help optimise infection detection.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe following funding sources are acknowledged as providing funding for the named authors. Wellcome Trust (206250/Z/17/Z: AJK, TWR; 210758/Z/18/Z: JH). AK was supported by the NIHR HPRU in Modelling and Health Economics, a partnership between PHE, Imperial College London and LSHTM (grant code NIHR200908). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the United Kingdom (UK) Department of Health and Social Care, the National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), or Public Health England (PHE). The SAFER study was funded by MRC UKRI (grant MC_PC_19082) and supported by the UCLH/UCL NIHR BRC.. The following funding sources are acknowledged as providing funding for the working group authors. Alan Turing Institute (AE). BBSRC LIDP (BB/M009513/1: DS). This research was partly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-001754: MQ; INV-003174: KP, MJ, YL; NTD Modelling Consortium OPP1184344: CABP, GFM; OPP1180644: SRP; OPP1183986: ESN; OPP1191821: KO'R, MA). BMGF (OPP1157270: KA). DFID/Wellcome Trust (Epidemic Preparedness Coronavirus research programme 221303/Z/20/Z: CABP, KvZ). DTRA (HDTRA1-18-1-0051: JWR). Elrha R2HC/UK DFID/Wellcome Trust/This research was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care (KvZ). ERC Starting Grant (#757699: JCE, MQ, RMGJH). This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - project EpiPose (101003688: KP, MJ, PK, RCB, WJE, YL). This research was partly funded by the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) project 'RECAP' managed through RCUK and ESRC (ES/P010873/1: AG, CIJ, TJ). HDR UK (MR/S003975/1: RME). MRC (MR/N013638/1: NRW). Nakajima Foundation (AE). NIHR (16/136/46: BJQ; 16/137/109: BJQ, CD, FYS, MJ, YL; Health Protection Research Unit for Immunisation NIHR200929: NGD; Health Protection Research Unit for Modelling Methodology HPRU-2012-10096: TJ; NIHR200908: RME; NIHR200929: FGS, MJ; PR-OD-1017-20002: AR, WJE). Royal Society (Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship: RL; RP\EA\180004: PK). UK DHSC/UK Aid/NIHR (ITCRZ 03010: HPG). UK MRC (LID DTP MR/N013638/1: GRGL, QJL; MC_PC_19065: AG, NGD, RME, SC, TJ, WJE, YL; MR/P014658/1: GMK). Authors of this research receive funding from UK Public Health Rapid Support Team funded by the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care (TJ). Wellcome Trust (206471/Z/17/Z: OJB; 208812/Z/17/Z: SC, SFlasche; 210758/Z/18/Z: JDM, KS, NIB, SA, SFunk, SRM). No funding (AKD, AMF, AS, CJVA, DCT, JW, KEA, SH, YJ, YWDC).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:We have ethics approval from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethics committee, specifically to study the SAFER data presented here and further datasets in the future.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll of the data and the code required to reproduce the figures and results of this study can be found at the public github repository: https://github.com/cmmid/pcr-profile. https://github.com/cmmid/pcr-profile https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31484-7.pdf