Dataset Information

Surveillance-based informative testing for detection and containment of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks on a public university campus: an observational and modelling study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite severe outbreaks of COVID-19 among colleges and universities across the USA during the Fall 2020 semester, the majority of institutions did not routinely test students. While high-frequency repeated testing is considered the most effective strategy for disease mitigation, most institutions do not have the necessary infrastructure or funding for implementation. Therefore, alternative strategies for testing the student population are needed. Our study detailed the implementation and results of testing strategies to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 spread on a university campus, and we aimed to assess the relative effectiveness of the different testing strategies.

Methods

For this retrospective cohort study, we included 6273 on-campus students arriving to a large public university in the rural USA (Clemson, SC, USA) for in-person instruction in the Fall 2020 semester (Sept 21 to Nov 25). Individuals arriving after Sept 23, those who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before Aug 19, and student athletes and band members were not included in this study. We implemented two testing strategies to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 spread during this period: a novel surveillance-based informative testing (SBIT) strategy, consisting of random surveillance testing to identify outbreaks in residence hall buildings or floors and target them for follow-up testing (Sept 23 to Oct 5); followed by a repeated weekly surveillance testing (Oct 6 to Nov 22). Relative changes in estimated weekly prevalence were examined. We developed SARS-CoV-2 transmission models to compare the relative effectiveness of weekly testing (900 daily surveillance tests), SBIT (450 daily surveillance tests), random surveillance testing (450 daily surveillance tests), and voluntary testing (0 daily surveillance tests) on disease mitigation. Model parameters were based on our empirical surveillance data in conjunction with published sources.

Findings

SBIT was implemented from Sept 23 to Oct 5, and identified outbreaks in eight residence hall buildings and 45 residence hall floors. Targeted testing of residence halls was 2·03 times more likely to detect a positive case than random testing (95% CI 1·67-2·46). Weekly prevalence was reduced from a peak of 8·7% to 5·6% during this 2-week period, a relative reduction of 36% (95% CI 27-44). Prevalence continued to decrease after implementation of weekly testing, reaching 0·8% at the end of in-person instruction (week 9). SARS-CoV-2 transmission models concluded that, in the absence of SBIT (ie, voluntary testing only), the total number of COVID-19 cases would have increased by 154% throughout the semester. Compared with SBIT, random surveillance testing alone would have resulted in a 24% increase in COVID-19 cases. Implementation of weekly testing at the start of the semester would have resulted in 36% fewer COVID-19 cases throughout the semester compared with SBIT, but it would require twice the number of daily tests.

Interpretation

It is imperative that institutions rigorously test students during the 2021 academic year. When high-frequency testing (eg, weekly) is not possible, SBIT is an effective strategy to mitigate disease spread among the student population that can be feasibly implemented across colleges and universities.

Funding

Clemson University, USA.

SUBMITTER: Rennert L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7979144 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesUniversities are exploring strategies to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 prior to reopening their campuses. National guidelines do not currently recommend testing students prior to campus arrival. However, the impact of presemester testing has not been studied.DesignDynamic SARS-CoV-2 transmission models are used to explore the effects of three presemester testing interventions.InterventionsTesting of students 0, 1 and 2 times prior to campus arrival.Primary outcomesNumber of active infections and time until isolation bed capacity is reached.SettingWe set on-campus and off-campus populations to 7500 and 17 500 students, respectively. We assumed 2% prevalence of active cases at the semester start, and that one-third of infected students will be detected and isolated throughout the semester. Isolation bed capacity was set at 500. We varied disease transmission rates (R0=1.5, 2, 3, 4) to represent the effectiveness of mitigation strategies throughout the semester.ResultsWithout presemester screening, peak number of active infections ranged from 4114 under effective mitigation strategies (R0=1.5) to 10 481 under ineffective mitigation strategies (R0=4), and exhausted isolation bed capacity within 10 (R 0 =4) to 25 days (R0=1.5). Mandating at least one test prior to campus arrival delayed the timing and reduced the size of the peak, while delaying the time until isolation bed capacity was reached. Testing twice in conjunction with effective mitigation strategies (R0=1.5) was the only scenario that did not exhaust isolation bed capacity during the semester.ConclusionsPresemester screening is necessary to avert early and large surges of active COVID-19 infections. Therefore, we recommend testing within 1 week prior to and on campus return. While this strategy is sufficient for delaying the timing of the peak outbreak, presemester testing would need to be implemented in conjunction with effective mitigation strategies to significantly reduce outbreak size and preserve isolation bed capacity.

Project description:Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) is utilized globally as a tool for quantifying the amount of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within communities, yet the efficacy of community-level wastewater monitoring has yet to be directly compared to random Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) clinical testing; the best-supported method of virus surveillance within a single population. This study evaluated the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 RNA in raw wastewater and random COVID-19 clinical testing on a large university campus in the Southwestern United States during the Fall 2020 semester. Daily composites of wastewater (24-hour samples) were collected three times per week at two campus locations from 16 August 2020 to 1 January 2021 (n = 95) and analyzed by reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 E gene. Campus populations were estimated using campus resident information and anonymized, unique user Wi-Fi connections. Resultant trends of SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels in wastewater were consistent with local and nationwide pandemic trends showing peaks in infections at the start of the Fall semester in mid-August 2020 and mid-to-late December 2020. A strong positive correlation (r = 0.71 (p < 0.01); n = 15) was identified between random COVID-19 clinical testing and WBE surveillance methods, suggesting that wastewater surveillance has a predictive power similar to that of random clinical testing. Additionally, a comparative cost analysis between wastewater and clinical methods conducted here show that WBE was more cost effective, providing data at 1.7% of the total cost of clinical testing ($6042 versus $338,000, respectively). We conclude that wastewater monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 performed in tandem with random clinical testing can strengthen campus health surveillance, and its economic advantages are maximized when performed routinely as a primary surveillance method, with random clinical testing reserved for an active outbreak situation.

Project description:ImportanceThe importance of surveillance testing and quarantine on university campuses to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission needs to be reevaluated in the context of a complex and rapidly changing environment that includes vaccines, variants, and waning immunity. Also, recent US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines suggest that vaccinated students do not need to participate in surveillance testing.ObjectiveTo evaluate the use of surveillance testing and quarantine in a fully vaccinated student population for whom vaccine effectiveness may be affected by the type of vaccination, presence of variants, and loss of vaccine-induced or natural immunity over time.Design setting and participantsIn this simulation study, an agent-based Susceptible, Exposed, Infected, Recovered model was developed with some parameters estimated using data from the 2020 to 2021 academic year at Duke University (Durham, North Carolina) that described a simulated population of 5000 undergraduate students residing on campus in residential dormitories. This study assumed that 100% of residential undergraduates are vaccinated. Under varying levels of vaccine effectiveness (90%, 75%, and 50%), the reductions in the numbers of positive cases under various mitigation strategies that involved surveillance testing and quarantine were estimated.Main outcomes and measuresThe percentage of students infected with SARS-CoV-2 each day for the course of the semester (100 days) and the total number of isolated or quarantined students were estimated.ResultsA total of 5000 undergraduates were simulated in the study. In simulations with 90% vaccine effectiveness, weekly surveillance testing was associated with only marginally reduced viral transmission. At 50% to 75% effectiveness, surveillance testing was estimated to reduce the number of infections by as much as 93.6%. A 10-day quarantine protocol for exposures was associated with only modest reduction in infections until vaccine effectiveness dropped to 50%. Increased testing of reported contacts was estimated to be at least as effective as quarantine at limiting infections.Conclusions and relevanceIn this simulated modeling study of infection dynamics on a college campus where 100% of the student body is vaccinated, weekly surveillance testing was associated with a substantial reduction of campus infections with even a modest loss of vaccine effectiveness. Model simulations also suggested that an increased testing cadence can be as effective as a 10-day quarantine period at limiting infections. Together, these findings provide a potential foundation for universities to design appropriate mitigation protocols for the 2021 to 2022 academic year.