Dataset Information

COVID-19 testing, timeliness and positivity from ICMR's laboratory surveillance network in India: Profile of 176 million individuals tested and 188 million tests, March 2020 to January 2021.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Indian Council of Medical Research set up a pan-national laboratory network to diagnose and monitor Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Based on these data, we describe the epidemiology of the pandemic at national and sub-national levels and the performance of the laboratory network.

Methods

We included surveillance data for individuals tested and the number of tests from March 2020 to January 2021. We calculated the incidence of COVID-19 by age, gender and state and tests per 100,000 population, the proportion of symptomatic individuals among those tested, the proportion of repeat tests and test positivity. We computed median (Interquartile range-IQR) days needed for selected surveillance activities to describe timeliness.

Results

The analysis included 176 million individuals and 188 million tests. The overall incidence of COVID-19 was 0.8%, and 12,584 persons per 100,000 population were tested. 6.1% of individuals tested returned a positive result. Ten of the 37 Indian States and Union Territories accounted for about 75.6% of the total cases. Daily testing scaled up from 40,000 initially to nearly one million in March 2021. The median duration between symptom onset and sample collection was two (IQR = 0,3) days, median duration between both sample collection and testing and between testing and data entry were less than or equal to one day. Missing or invalid entries ranged from 0.01% for age to 0.7% for test outcome.

Conclusion

The laboratory network set-up by ICMR was scaled up massively over a short period, which enabled testing a large section of the population. Although all states and territories were affected, most cases were concentrated in a few large states. Timeliness between the various surveillance activities was acceptable, indicating good responsiveness of the surveillance system.

SUBMITTER: Ponnaiah M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8641892 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 has caused a pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) which has spread exponentially worldwide. A robust surveillance system is essential for correct estimation of the disease burden and containment of the pandemic. We evaluated the performance of COVID-19 case-based surveillance system in FCT, Nigeria and assessed its key attributes.MethodsWe used a cross-sectional study design, comprising a survey, key informant interview, record review and secondary data analysis. A self-administered, semi-structured questionnaire was administered to key stakeholders to assess the attributes and process of operation of the surveillance system using CDC's Updated Guidelines for Evaluation of Public Health Surveillance System 2001. Data collected alongside surveillance data from March 2020 to January 2021 were analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics.ResultsOut of 69,338 suspected cases, 12,595 tested positive with RT-PCR with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 18%. Healthcare workers were identified as high-risk group with a prevalence of 23.5%. About 82% respondents perceived the system to be simple, 85.5% posited that the system was flexible and easily accommodates changes, 71.4% reported that the system was acceptable and expressed willingness to continue participation. Representativeness of the system was 93%, stability 40%, data quality 56.2% and timeliness 45.5%, estimated result turnaround time (TAT) was suboptimal.ConclusionThe system was found to be useful, simple, flexible, sensitive, acceptable, with good representativeness but the stability, data quality and timeliness was poor. The system meets initial surveillance objectives but rapid expansion of sample collection and testing sites, improvement of TAT, sustainable funding, improvement of electronic database, continuous provision of logistics, supplies and additional trainings are needed to address identified weaknesses, optimize the system performance and meet increasing need of case detection in the wake of rapidly spreading pandemic. More risk-group persons should be tested to improve surveillance effectiveness.

Project description:The 50% plaque reduction neutralization assay (PRNT50) has been previously used to assess the neutralization capacity of donor plasma against wild-type and variant of concern (VOC) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Emerging data suggest that plasma with an anti-SARS-CoV-2 level of ≥2 × 104 binding antibody units/mL (BAU/mL) protects against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 infection. Specimens were collected using a cross-sectional random sampling approach. For PRNT50 studies, 63 previously analyzed specimens by PRNT50 versus SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta were analyzed by PRNT50 versus Omicron BA.1. The 63 specimens plus 4,390 specimens (randomly sampled regardless of serological evidence of infection) were also tested using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (anti-spike [S]; Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA; Abbott Quant assay). In the vaccinated group, the percentages of specimens with any measurable PRNT50 versus wild-type or VOC were wild type (21/25 [84%]), Alpha (19/25 [76%]), Beta (18/25 [72%]), Gamma (13/25 [52%]), Delta (19/25 [76%]), and Omicron BA.1 (9/25 [36%]). In the unvaccinated group, the percentages of specimens with any measurable PRNT50 versus wild type or VOC were wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (16/39 [41%]), Alpha (16/39 [41%]), Beta (10/39 [26%]), Gamma (9/39 [23%]), Delta (16/39 [41%]), and Omicron BA.1 (0/39) (Fisher's exact tests, vaccinated versus unvaccinated for each variant, P < 0.05). None of the 4,453 specimens tested by the Abbott Quant assay had a binding capacity of ≥2 × 104 BAU/mL. Vaccinated donors were more likely than unvaccinated donors to neutralize Omicron when assessed by a PRNT50 assay. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 Omicron emergence occurred in Canada during the period from November 2021 to January 2022. This study assessed the ability of donor plasma collected earlier (January to March 2021) to generate any neutralizing capacity against Omicron BA.1 SARS-CoV-2. Vaccinated individuals, regardless of infection status, were more likely to neutralize Omicron BA.1 than unvaccinated individuals. This study then used a semiquantitative binding antibody assay to screen a larger number of specimens (4,453) for individual specimens that might have high-titer neutralizing capacity against Omicron BA.1. None of the 4,453 specimens tested by the semiquantitative SARS-CoV-2 assay had a binding capacity suggestive of a high-titer neutralizing capacity against Omicron BA.1. These data do not imply that Canadians lacked immunity to Omicron BA.1 during the study period. Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is complex, and there is still no wide consensus on correlation of protection to SARS-CoV-2.