Optimizing COVID-19 control with asymptomatic surveillance testing in a university environment

The high proportion of transmission events derived from asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections make SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent in COVID-19, difficult to control through the traditional non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) of symptom-based isolation and contact tracing. As a consequence, many US universities developed asymptomatic surveillance testing labs, to augment NPIs and control outbreaks on campus throughout the 2020–2021 academic year (AY); several of those labs continue to support asymptomatic surveillance efforts on campus in AY2021–2022. At the height of the pandemic, we built a stochastic branching process model of COVID-19 dynamics at UC Berkeley to advise optimal control strategies in a university environment. Our model combines behavioral interventions in the form of group size limits to deter superspreading, symptom-based isolation, and contact tracing, with asymptomatic surveillance testing. We found that behavioral interventions offer a cost-effective means of epidemic control: group size limits of six or fewer greatly reduce superspreading, and rapid isolation of symptomatic infections can halt rising epidemics, depending on the frequency of asymptomatic transmission in the population. Surveillance testing can overcome uncertainty surrounding asymptomatic infections, with the most effective approaches prioritizing frequent testing with rapid turnaround time to isolation over test sensitivity. Importantly, contact tracing amplifies population-level impacts of all infection isolations, making even delayed interventions effective. Combination of behavior-based NPIs and asymptomatic surveillance also reduces variation in daily case counts to produce more predictable epidemics. Furthermore, targeted, intensive testing of a minority of high transmission risk individuals can effectively control the COVID-19 epidemic for the surrounding population. Even in some highly vaccinated university settings in AY2021–2022, asymptomatic surveillance testing offers an effective means of identifying breakthrough infections, halting onward transmission, and reducing total caseload. We offer this blueprint and easy-to-implement modeling tool to other academic or professional communities navigating optimal return-to-work strategies.

Text S1. Model Description. 3 Our publicly-available Github repository (1) provides opensource code to reproduce all 4 simulations and analyses presented in our paper. We summarize the practical implementation 5 details of our modeling design for ease-of-access here. 6 Our model takes the form of a stochastic branching process model, in which a subset 7 population of exposed individuals (0.5%, derived from the mean percentage of positive tests in 8 our UC Berkeley community (2)) is introduced into a hypothetical 20,000 person community that 9 approximates the campus utilization goals for our university in spring 2021. The model code 10 builds up to a single function `replicate.epidemic()` which runs a specified number of stochastic 11 simulations from a defined parameter set, using the function 'simulate.epidemic()'. Within the 12 'simulate.epidemic()' function, we first construct a population of 20,000 persons in the sub-13 function, 'initiate.pop()'. Within this initiation function, each person in our population is 14 individually numbered, assigned a viral titer trajectory that will be followed if that individual 15 becomes infected (Text B), and assigned a suite of disease metrics drawn stochastically from a 16 specified set of parameter distributions, as outlined in Text S3. 17 18 Text S2.

Within-host viral dynamics 19
Titer Trajectories. 20 For computational efficiency, we pre-generated 20,000 50-day individual titer trajectories 21 and saved them as an .Rdata file, `"titer.dat.20K.Rdata"`. To generate these trajectories, we used 22 a within-host viral kinetics model structured after the classic target cell model (3)(4)(5). Code for 23 this model is available in the 'model-sandbox' folder of our Github release, under file `viral-24 load.R`, which iterates the following simple model and parameter values derived from Ke et al. 25 (2020), describing the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 proliferation in the upper respiratory tract (6) where ! corresponds to the target cell population, is the transmission rate of free virus to 33 target cell invasion, corresponds to the inverse of the duration of the virus eclipse phase, and 34 corresponds to the inverse of the incubation period of an infected cell. then gives the burst size 35 of a virus-infected cell and equals the inverse of the lifespan of free virus subject to natural 36 described the probability this probability as: 54 where $ corresponds to the saturation constant by which proportional gains in infectiousness 56 with viral load diminish at increasingly high viral titers and is a constant, such that the 57 maximum transmission capacity at any moment equals 1 − #% . Ke et al. (2020) modeled a 58 constant hazard of contact events for infectious individuals and therefore fixed at a value of 59 0.05, corresponding to a ~5% probability of a given contact resulting in transmission. Because 60 we draw possible transmissions events from a negative binomial SARS-CoV-2 R0 distribution, 61 (mean= 2.5 and k=0.10 (7)) but ultimately know that RE for our university environment should 62 have a value of just above one (8) • Adherence with testing regime: Y/N, allocated randomly across individuals based on the 89 proportion of the population modeled as complying with the surveillance testing intervention 90 (90% of individuals in all scenarios modeled in our paper). 91 • Adherence with group limit: Y/N, allocated randomly across individuals based on the 92 proportion of the population modeled as complying with the group size limits imposed at 93 outset (90% of individuals in all scenarios modeled in our paper; see 'number of potential 94 onward cases generated for' for how group size interacts with cases). 95 • Adherence with contact tracing regimen: Y/N, allocated randomly across individuals based 96 on the proportion of the population modeled as complying with the contact tracing 97 intervention imposed at outset (90% of individuals in all scenarios modeled in our paper). 98 • Time of symptom onset: determined by randomly drawing a titer limit for symptom onset for 99 each individual from a lognormal distribution with a mean of 1e+05 cp/µl RNA and a 100 standard deviation of 1e+04 cp/µl (10-12). The timing of symptom onset then corresponds to 101 the time post-exposure at which each individual's titer trajectory crosses the corresponding 102 titer limit. According to this approach, under default parameter values, symptom onset 103 occurred between 2 to 4 days post-exposure in our model, and ~32% of the population never 104 presented with symptoms at all (Fig. 1, main text). 105 • Time of symptom-based isolation: based on delay lag post-symptom onset, drawn from a 106 lognormal distribution with a mean of the specified number of days of symptom isolation lag 107 (1-5 or infinity) and a standard deviation of 0.5 days. 108 • Time of tracing-based isolation: based on contact tracing lag for those adhering to the 109 contact tracing regimen in place. Parameter must be updated with each timestep until 110 individual becomes infected; value then becomes fixed at time of infector isolation, plus 111 corresponding lag drawn from a lognormal distribution with a mean of one day and a standard 112 deviation of 0.5 days. 113 • Time of testing-based isolation: based on turnaround time to isolation post testing, drawn 114 from a lognormal distribution with a mean of the specified number of delay days (1-5, 10, or 115 infinity) and a standard deviation of 0.5 days. Parameter is updated when 'time of next test' is 116 updated for each individual in our model. 117 • Disease status: 'susceptible' = 0, 'exposed' = 3, 'infectious' = 1, 'recovered' = 5, 118 'vaccinated'= 6. At onset, all individuals are modeled as susceptible, excepting the 0.5% 119 which are introduced as infectious (1) to seed the epidemic and the 'prop-vaccinated', a 120 parameter encoding the proportion of the target population that is vaccinated prior to the start 121 of epidemic simulations. We additionally encode a 'prop-breakthrough' parameter which 122 corresponds to the proportion of vaccinated individuals who experience breakthrough 123 infections. In simulations presented in our paper, 95% of vaccinated individuals are treated as 124 if fully immune, while 5% of individuals experience breakthrough infections; these 125 breakthrough cases are modeled stochastically, based on probability at the timestep in which 126 each possible infection encounter occurs. 127 Number of potential onward cases generated: Several figures in the main text of our 128 manuscript present the RE reduction capacity of a specified intervention, which we calculate 129 as the difference between the average of the number of potential onward cases generated and 130 the number of actual onward cases generated for each individual after an intervention is 131 adopted. To compute the number of potential onward cases generated for each individual, we 132 first draw a number of possible cases from a negative binomial distribution with a mean of 2.5 133 and a dispersion parameter (k) of 0.10, as estimated for SARS-CoV-2 (7) (or with a mean of 6 134 in later simulations to represent the heightened transmissibility of the Delta variant (13)). 135 Next, we assume that a minority of transmission events will be lost to the external 136 environment through contacts between UC Berkeley students and members from the outside 137 community. We do not track these 'lost cases' but instead simply reduce the total number of 138 potential onward cases to the proportion constrained within UCB: 90% in simulations 139 presented in the main text and 50% in the sensitivity analysis presented in Fig. S5 (2020) (9). Following the above example, 4 discrete generation times would be assigned to 156 cases across the 4 pre-allocated events. 157 Since each individual is already pre-assigned a within-host viral titer trajectory in our 158 modeling framework, we next examine the viral load specified at the generation time of each 159 transmission event and determine if each case assigned to that event actually occurs. Each for each transmission event are truncated at the intervention limit. 182 Again following the example listed above, if we imagine that the imposed group size limit 183 is 6, then the 7 cases assigned to a single event will be truncated to 6, meaning that 9 out of 184 the 10 potential cases are allowed to occur after the intervention. Our model is conservative in 185 assessing the impact of a group-size intervention by allowing some portion of those 186 superspreading cases to occur, rather than assuming that a group size limit-abiding infectious 187 individual does not attend larger-than-allowable events altogether. Because only 90% of the 188 population adheres to group size intervention in any given simulation (or 50% in sensitivity 189 analyses; see Fig. S1), some proportion of large superspreading events will still take place at 190 random, even after NPIs are imposed. 191 Following onset of infection, the timings of symptom-, tracing-, and asymptomatic testing-based 192 isolations are then compared and the earliest time is selected as the actual mechanism (if any) of 193 isolation for that individual.     saved, and C. daily case counts for the first 50 days of the epidemic, across regimes of differing testing frequency 310 and a combination of surveillance testing, contact tracing, symptomatic isolation, and group size limit interventions.

311
All scenarios depicted here assumed test turnaround time, symptomatic isolation lags, and contact tracing lags drawn 312 from a log-normal distribution with mean=one day. Limit of detection was fixed at 10 1 and group size limits at 12.

347
cumulative cases saved compared to a baseline scenario in which no behavior-based or testing NPIs were applied 348 but simulations were run under assumptions of 60% vaccination in an R0=6 environment. C. Daily case counts for 349 the first 50 days of the epidemic, across regimes of differing testing frequency and a combination of surveillance 350 testing, contact tracing, symptomatic isolation, and group size limit interventions. All scenarios depicted here 351 assumed test turnaround time, symptomatic isolation lags, and contact tracing lags drawn from a log-normal 352 distribution with mean=one day. Limit of detection was fixed at 10 1 and group size limits at 12.

373
symptomatic isolation, and group size limit interventions. All scenarios depicted here assumed test turnaround time, 374 symptomatic isolation lags, and contact tracing lags drawn from a log-normal distribution with mean=one day. Limit 375 of detection was fixed at 10 1 and group size limits at 12. Dynamics shown here are from simulations in which testing 376 was limited to two test days per week. Even in highly vaccinated university settings, behavior-based NPIs and 377 asymptomatic surveillance testing reduce RE and avert cases largely derived from breakthrough infections, though 378 lower baseline case counts equate to lower gains in RE reduction and case aversions. Variance between simulations 379 and between interventions is most diminished in this epidemic scenario, indicating that testing alone, without 380 rigorous extensive additional interventions, can effectively control outbreaks.

381
*Note: RE reduction (panel A) is calculated as the difference in mean RE in the absence vs. presence of a given NPI.

382
The upper confidence limit (uci)