Background Starting in late 2019, COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, spread around the world. Long-term care facilities are at particularly high risk of outbreaks, and the burden of morbidity and mortality is very high among residents living in these facilities. Objectives To assess the effects of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities to prevent or reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents, staff, and visitors. Search methods On 22 January 2021, we searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We also conducted backward citation searches of existing reviews. Selection criteria We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies that assessed the effects of the measures implemented in long-term care facilities to protect residents and staff against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary outcomes were infections, hospitalisations and deaths due to COVID-19, contaminations of and outbreaks in long-term care facilities, and adverse health effects. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author performed data extractions, risk of bias assessments and quality appraisals, and at least one other author checked their accuracy. Risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted using the ROBINS-I tool for cohort and interrupted-time-series studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for case-control studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, with the author team critically discussing the ratings. Main results We included 11 observational studies and 11 modelling studies in the analysis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies compared outcomes in long-term care facilities that implemented the measures with predicted or observed control scenarios without the measure (but often with baseline infection control measures also in place). Several modelling studies assessed additional comparator scenarios, such as comparing higher with lower rates of testing. There were serious concerns regarding risk of bias in almost all observational studies and major or critical concerns regarding the quality of many modelling studies. Most observational studies did not adequately control for confounding. Many modelling studies used inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of the models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Overall, we identified five intervention domains, each including a number of specific measures. Entry regulation measures (4 observational studies; 4 modelling studies) Self-confinement of staff with residents may reduce the number of infections, probability of facility contamination, and number of deaths. Quarantine for new admissions may reduce the number of infections. Testing of new admissions and intensified testing of residents and of staff after holidays may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain regarding whether restricting admissions of new residents reduces the number of infections, but the measure may reduce the probability of facility contamination. Visiting restrictions may reduce the number of infections and deaths. Furthermore, it may increase the probability of facility contamination, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is very uncertain how visiting restrictions may adversely affect the mental health of residents. Contact-regulating and transmission-reducing measures (6 observational studies; 2 modelling studies) Barrier nursing may increase the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent cleaning and environmental hygiene measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is unclear how contact reduction measures affect the probability of outbreaks. These measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. Personal hygiene measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Mask and personal protective equipment usage may reduce the number of infections, the probability of outbreaks, and the number of deaths, but the evidence is very uncertain. Cohorting residents and staff may reduce the number of infections, although evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent contact -regulating and transmission -reducing measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Surveillance measures (2 observational studies; 6 modelling studies) Routine testing of residents and staff independent of symptoms may reduce the number of infections. It may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Evidence from one observational study suggests that the measure may reduce, while the evidence from one modelling study suggests that it probably reduces hospitalisations. The measure may reduce the number of deaths among residents, but the evidence on deaths among staff is unclear. Symptom-based surveillance testing may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Outbreak control measures (4 observational studies; 3 modelling studies) Separating infected and non-infected residents or staff caring for them may reduce the number of infections. The measure may reduce the probability of outbreaks and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain. Isolation of cases may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent measures (2 observational studies; 1 modelling study) A combination of multiple infection-control measures, including various combinations of the above categories, may reduce the number of infections and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain. Authors' conclusions This review provides a comprehensive framework and synthesis of a range of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities. These may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences. However, the certainty of evidence is predominantly low to very low, due to the limited availability of evidence and the design and quality of available studies. Therefore, true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Overall, more studies producing stronger evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological measures are needed, especially in low- and middle-income countries and on possible unintended consequences of these measures. Future research should explore the reasons behind the paucity of evidence to guide pandemic research priority setting in the future.

Non-pharmacological measures implemented in the setting of long-term care facilities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences: a rapid review

Rapid testing, generally refers to the paper-based diagnostic platform known as “lateral flow assay” (LFA), has emerged as a critical asset to the containment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) around the world. LFA technology stands out amongst peer platforms due to its cost-effective design, user-friendly interface, and low sample-to-readout times. This article aims to introduce its design, use, and practicality for the purpose of diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. A connection is made from the normal COVID-19 immune response to the design and efficacy of rapid testing. Interference in test results is a challenge shared by most diagnostic platforms and can be rooted in various underlying issues. The current knowledge and situation about interference in rapid COVID-19 tests due to variant strains as well as vaccination are discussed. The cost and societal impact are reviewed as they play important roles in determining how to properly implement public testing practices. Perspectives on improving the performance, especially detection sensitivity, of LFA for COVID-19 are provided.

/pdf/rapid-testing-for-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-3ogs6ctq.pdf

Rapid testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Rapid testing, generally refers to the paper-based diagnostic platform known as “lateral flow assay” (LFA), has emerged as a critical asset to the containment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) around the world. LFA technology stands out amongst peer platforms due to its cost-effective design, user-friendly interface, and low sample-to-readout times. This article aims to introduce its design, use, and practicality for the purpose of diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. A connection is made from the normal COVID-19 immune response to the design and efficacy of rapid testing. Interference in test results is a challenge shared by most diagnostic platforms and can be rooted in various underlying issues. The current knowledge and situation about interference in rapid COVID-19 tests due to variant strains as well as vaccination are discussed. The cost and societal impact are reviewed as they play important roles in determining how to properly implement public testing practices. Perspectives on improving the performance, especially detection sensitivity, of LFA for COVID-19 are provided. Graphical abstract

/pdf/rapid-testing-for-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-23gq1gv0.pdf

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines are approved, vaccination campaigns are launched, and worldwide return to normality seems within close reach. Nevertheless, concerns about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines arose, due to their fast emergency approval. In fact, the problem of antibody-dependent enhancement was raised in the context of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We introduce a complex extension of the model underlying the pandemic preparedness tool CovidSim 1.1 (http://covidsim.eu/) to optimize vaccination strategies with regard to the onset of campaigns, vaccination coverage, vaccination schedules, vaccination rates, and efficiency of vaccines. Vaccines are not assumed to immunize perfectly. Some individuals fail to immunize, some reach only partial immunity, and-importantly-some develop antibody-dependent enhancement, which increases the likelihood of developing symptomatic and severe episodes (associated with higher case fatality) upon infection. Only a fraction of the population will be vaccinated, reflecting vaccination hesitancy or contraindications. The model is intended to facilitate decision making by exploring ranges of parameters rather than to be fitted by empirical data. We parameterized the model to reflect the situation in Germany and predict increasing incidence (and prevalence) in early 2021 followed by a decline by summer. Assuming contact reductions (curfews, social distancing, etc.) to be lifted in summer, disease incidence will peak again. Fast vaccine deployment contributes to reduce disease incidence in the first quarter of 2021, and delay the epidemic outbreak after the summer season. Higher vaccination coverage results in a delayed and reduced epidemic peak. A coverage of 75%-80% is necessary to prevent an epidemic peak without further drastic contact reductions. CONCLUSIONS: With the vaccine becoming available, compliance with contact reductions is likely to fade. To prevent further economic damage from COVID-19, high levels of immunization need to be reached before next year's flu season, and vaccination strategies and disease management need to be flexibly adjusted. The predictive model can serve as a refined decision support tool for COVID-19 management.

/pdf/the-impact-of-covid-19-vaccination-campaigns-accounting-for-wzldzt156c.pdf

The impact of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns accounting for antibody-dependent enhancement.

Evaluation and clinical implications of the time to a positive results of antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Different levels of control measures were introduced to contain the global COVID-19 pandemic, many of which have been controversial, particularly the comprehensive use of diagnostic tests. Regular testing of high-risk individuals (pre-existing conditions, older than 60 years of age) has been suggested by public health authorities. The WHO suggested the use of routine screening of residents, employees, and visitors of long-term care facilities (LTCF) to protect the resident risk group. Similar suggestions have been made by the WHO for other closed facilities including incarceration facilities (e.g., prisons or jails), wherein parts of the U.S., accelerated release of approved inmates is taken as a measure to mitigate COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Here, the simulation model underlying the pandemic preparedness tool CovidSim 1.1 (http://covidsim.eu/) is extended to investigate the effect of regularly testing of employees to protect immobile resident risk groups in closed facilities. The reduction in the number of infections and deaths within the risk group is investigated. Our simulations are adjusted to reflect the situation of LTCFs in Germany, and incarceration facilities in the U.S. COVID-19 spreads in closed facilities due to contact with infected employees even under strict confinement of visitors in a pandemic scenario without targeted protective measures. Testing is only effective in conjunction with targeted contact reduction between the closed facility and the outside world-and will be most inefficient under strategies aiming for herd immunity. The frequency of testing, the quality of tests, and the waiting time for obtaining test results have noticeable effects. The exact reduction in the number of cases depends on disease prevalence in the population and the levels of contact reductions. Testing every 5 days with a good quality test and a processing time of 24 hours can lead up to a 40% reduction in the number of infections. However, the effects of testing vary substantially among types of closed facilities and can even be counterproductive in U.S. IFs. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of COVID-19 in closed facilities is unavoidable without a thorough screening of persons that can introduce the disease into the facility. Regular testing of employees in closed facilities can contribute to reducing the number of infections there, but is only meaningful as an accompanying measure, whose economic benefit needs to be assessed carefully.

Preventing COVID-19 spread in closed facilities by regular testing of employees-An efficient intervention in long-term care facilities and prisons?

Background: After COVID-19 vaccines received approval, vaccination campaigns were launched worldwide. Initially, these were characterized by a shortage of vaccine supply, and specific risk groups were prioritized. Once supply was guaranteed and vaccination coverage saturated, the focus shifted from risk groups to anti-vaxxers, the underaged population, and regions of low coverage. At the same time, hopes to reach herd immunity by vaccination campaigns were put into perspective by the emergence and spread of more contagious and aggressive viral variants. Particularly, concerns were raised that not all vaccines protect against the new-emerging variants. Methods and findings: A model designed to predict the effect of vaccination campaigns on the spread of viral variants is introduced. The model is a comprehensive extension of the model underlying the pandemic preparedness tool CovidSim 2.0 (http://covidsim.eu/). The model is age and spatially stratified, incorporates a finite (but arbitrary) number of different viral variants, and incorporates different vaccine products. The vaccines are allowed to differ in their vaccination schedule, vaccination rates, the onset of vaccination campaigns, and their effectiveness. These factors are also age and/or location dependent. Moreover, the effectiveness and the immunizing effect of vaccines are assumed to depend on the interaction of a given vaccine and viral variant. Importantly, vaccines are not assumed to immunize perfectly. Individuals can be immunized completely, only partially, or fail to be immunized against one or many viral variants. Not all individuals in the population are vaccinable. The model is formulated as a high-dimensional system of differential equations, which is implemented efficiently in the programming language Julia. As an example, the model was parameterized to reflect the epidemic situation in Germany until November 2021 and predicted the future dynamics of the epidemic under different interventions. In particular, without tightening contact reductions, a strong epidemic wave is predicted. At the current state, mandatory vaccination would be too late to have a strong effect on reducing the number of infections. However, it would reduce mortality. An emergency brake, i.e., an incidence-based stepwise lockdown would be efficient to reduce the number of infections and mortality. Furthermore, to specifically account for mobility between regions, the model was applied to two German provinces of particular interest: Saxony, which currently has the lowest vaccine rollout in Germany and high incidence, and Schleswig-Holstein, which has high vaccine rollout and low incidence. Conclusions: A highly sophisticated and flexible but easy-to-parameterize model for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is introduced. The model is capable of providing useful predictions for the COVID-19 pandemic, and hence provides a relevant tool for epidemic decision-making. The model can be adjusted to any country, to derive the demand for hospital and ICU capacities as well as economic collateral damages.

Predicting the impact of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns - a flexible age-dependent, spatially-stratified predictive model, accounting for multiple viral variants and vaccines

Pierre Marie Ngougoue Ngougoue

Papers

Preventing COVID-19 spread in closed facilities by regular testing of employees-An efficient intervention in long-term care facilities and prisons?

Predicting the impact of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns - a flexible age-dependent, spatially-stratified predictive model, accounting for multiple viral variants and vaccines