RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A Working Model to Inform Risk-Based Back to Work Strategies
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.18.20248512
DO 10.1101/2020.12.18.20248512
A1 Meier, Kristen
A1 Curnow, Kirsten J.
A1 Vavrek, Darcy
A1 Moon, John
A1 Farh, Kyle
A1 Chian, Martin
A1 Ragusa, Robert
A1 de Feo, Eileen
A1 Febbo, Phillip G.
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/22/2020.12.18.20248512.abstract
AB Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced many businesses to close or move to remote work to reduce the potential spread of disease. Employers desiring a return to onsite work want to understand their risk for having an infected employee on site and how best to mitigate this risk. Here, we modelled a range of key metrics to help inform return to work policies and procedures, including evaluating the benefit and optimal design of a SARS-CoV-2 employee screening program.Methods We modeled a range of input variables including prevalence of COVID-19, time infected, number of employees, test sensitivity and specificity, test turnaround time, number of times tested within the infectious period, and sample pooling. We modeled the impact of these input variables on several output variables: number of healthy employees; number of infected employees; number of test positive and test negative employees; number of true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative employees; positive and negative predictive values; and time an infected, potentially contagious employee is on site.Results We show that an employee screening program can reduce the risk for onsite transmission across different prevalence values and group sizes. For example, at a pre-test asymptomatic community prevalence of 0.5% (5 in 1000) with an employee group size of 500, the risk for at least one infected employee on site is 91.8%, with 3 asymptomatic infected employees predicted within those 500 employees. Implementing a SARS-CoV-2 baseline screen with an 80% sensitivity and 99.5% specificity would reduce the risk of at least one infected employee on site to 39.4% and the predicted number of infected employees onsite (false negatives) to 1. Repetitive testing is required for ongoing vigilance of onsite employees. The expected number of days an infected employee is on site depends on test sensitivity, testing interval, and turnaround time. If the test interval is longer than the infectious period (∼14 days for COVID-19), testing will not detect the infected employee. Sample pooling reduces the number of tests performed, thereby reducing testing costs. However, the pooling methodology (eg, 1-stage vs 2-stage pooling, pool size) will impact the number of employees that screen positive, thereby affected the number of employees eligible to return to onsite work.Conclusions The modeling presented here can be used to help employers understand their risk for having an infected employee on site. Further, it details how an employee screening program can reduce this risk and shows how screening performance and frequency impact the effectiveness of a screening program. The primary factors determining the effectiveness of a screening program are test sensitivity and frequency of testing.Disclaimer This publication is offered to businesses/employers as a model of potential risk arising from COVID19 in the workplace. While believed to be based on reliable data, the model described herein has not been prospectively validated and should not be relied upon for any purpose other than as an aid to understand the potential impacts of a number of variables on the risk of having COVID19 positive employees on a worksite. Decisions related to workplace safety; COVID19 related workplace testing; programs and procedures should be based upon your actual data and applicable laws and public health orders.Competing Interest StatementAll authors are or were employees of and hold equity in Illumina, Inc.Funding StatementThis study was funded by Illumina, Inc.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:No human patients or samples were included.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.YesWe are currently developing an online version of a tool so that people can explore the modeling presented here.