PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Kenyon, Chris
TI  - Intensive COVID-19 testing associated with reduced mortality - an ecological analysis of 108 countries
AID  - 10.1101/2020.05.28.20115691
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.05.28.20115691
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/30/2020.05.28.20115691.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/30/2020.05.28.20115691.full
AB  - Background Intensive screening and testing for COVID-19 could facilitate early detection and isolation of infected persons and thereby control the size of the epidemic. It could also facilitate earlier and more targeted therapy. These factors could plausibly reduce attributable mortality which was the hypothesis tested in this study.Methods Linear regression was used to assess the country-level association between COVID-19 attributable mortality per 100 000 inhabitants (mortality/capita) and COVID-19 tests/capita (number of tests/100 000 inhabitants) controlling for the cumulative number of COVID-19 infections/100 000 inhabitants (cases/capita), the age of the epidemic (number of days between first case reported and 8 April), national health expenditure per capita and WHO world region.Results The COVID-19 mortality rate varied between 0.3 and 3110 deaths/100 000 inhabitants (median 30, IQR 8–105). The intensity of testing per 100 000 also varied considerably (median 21,970, IQR 2,735–89,095) as did the number of COVID-19 cases per 100 000 (median 1,600, IQR 340–4,760 cases/100 000). In the multivariate model, the COVID-19 mortality rate was negatively associated with tests/capita (Coef. –0.036, 95% CI –0.047- –0.025) and positively associated with cases/capita (Coef. 0.093, 95% CI 0.819- 1.034).Conclusions The results are compatible with the hypothesis that intensive testing and isolation could play a role in reducing COVID-10 mortality rates.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding was received fo this studyAuthor 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:The study was an ecological study of public access data and thus required no IRB approvalAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as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.YesThe data used is freely available from the World of Meters data repository: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ and ECDC: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/