Dataset Information

Routine saliva testing for the identification of silent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Current COVID-19 guidelines recommend symptom-based screening and regular nasopharyngeal (NP) testing for healthcare personnel in high-risk settings. We sought to estimate case detection percentages with various routine NP and saliva testing frequencies.

Design

Simulation modeling study.

Methods

We constructed a sensitivity function based on the average infectiousness profile of symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases to determine the probability of being identified at the time of testing. This function was fitted to reported data on the percent positivity of symptomatic COVID-19 patients using NP testing. We then simulated a routine testing program with different NP and saliva testing frequencies to determine case detection percentages during the infectious period, as well as the presymptomatic stage.

Results

Routine biweekly NP testing, once every 2 weeks, identified an average of 90.7% (SD, 0.18) of cases during the infectious period and 19.7% (SD, 0.98) during the presymptomatic stage. With a weekly NP testing frequency, the corresponding case detection percentages were 95.9% (SD, 0.18) and 32.9% (SD, 1.23), respectively. A 5-day saliva testing schedule had a similar case detection percentage as weekly NP testing during the infectious period, but identified ~10% more cases (mean, 42.5%; SD, 1.10) during the presymptomatic stage.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the utility of routine noninvasive saliva testing for frontline healthcare workers to protect vulnerable patient populations. A 5-day saliva testing schedule should be considered to help identify silent infections and prevent outbreaks in nursing homes and healthcare facilities.

SUBMITTER: Zhang K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7870913 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Routine saliva testing for the identification of silent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers.

Zhang Kevin K Shoukat Affan A Crystal William W Langley Joanne M JM Galvani Alison P AP Moghadas Seyed M SM

Infection control and hospital epidemiology 20210111 10

<h4>Objective</h4>Current COVID-19 guidelines recommend symptom-based screening and regular nasopharyngeal (NP) testing for healthcare personnel in high-risk settings. We sought to estimate case detection percentages with various routine NP and saliva testing frequencies.<h4>Design</h4>Simulation modeling study.<h4>Methods</h4>We constructed a sensitivity function based on the average infectiousness profile of symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases to determine the probability of ...[more]

PMID: 33427141

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19-compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations.ResultsWe enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was .72 (95% CI, .44-1.16; P = .18) and for twice-weekly was .74 (95% CI, .46-1.19; P = .22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82-120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159-258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19-compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P = .08).ConclusionsPre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19-compatible illness among healthcare workers.Clinical trials registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467.

Project description:BackgroundStudies on the impact of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID) for healthcare workers (HCWs) rarely include the full spectrum of hospital workers, including less visible patient support roles. In the early days of the pandemic, COVID testing was preferentially available to HCWs. The objective of this study was to understand how individual experiences for all HCWs during the pandemic were associated with perceptions of access to, and receipt of COVID testing .MethodsAll hospital employees (n = 6736) in a single academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey regarding perceived access to, and receipt of COVID testing during the first wave of the pandemic (March - August 2020). Responses were linked to human resources data. Log binomial univariate and multivariable models were used to estimate associations between individual and employment variables and COVID testing.ResultsA total of 2543 employees responded to the survey (38 %). The mean age was 40 years (± 14). Respondents were female (76 %), white (55 %), worked as nurses (27 %), administrators (22 %) and patient support roles (22 %); 56 % of respondents wanted COVID testing. Age (RR 0.91, CI 0.88-0.93), full time status (RR 0.85, CI 0.79-0.92), employment tenure (RR 0.96, CI 0.94-0.98), changes in quality of life (RR 0.94, CI 0.91-0.96), changes in job duties (RR 1.19, CI 1.03-1.37), and worry about enough paid sick leave (RR 1.21, CI 1.12-1.30) were associated with interest in testing. Administrators (RR 0.64, CI 0.58-0.72) and patient support staff (RR 0.85, CI 0.78-0.92) were less likely than nurses to want testing. Age (RR 1.04, CI 1.01-1.07), material hardships (RR 0.87, CI 0.79-0.96), and employer sponsored insurance (RR 1.10, CI 1.00-1.22) were associated with receiving a COVID test. Among all employees, only administrative/facilities staff were less likely to receive COVID testing (RR 0.69, CI 0.59-0.79).ConclusionsThis study adds to our understanding of how hospital employees view availability of COVID testing. Hazard pay or other supports for hospital workers may increase COVID testing rates. These findings may be applicable to perceived barriers towards vaccination receipt.

Dataset Information

Routine saliva testing for the identification of silent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers.

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Routine saliva testing for the identification of silent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets