RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 High Rates of Rapid Antigen Test Positivity After 5 days of Isolation for COVID-19
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.02.01.22269931
DO 10.1101/2022.02.01.22269931
A1 Emily Landon
A1 Allison H. Bartlett
A1 Rachel Marrs
A1 Caroline Guenette
A1 Stephen G Weber
A1 Michael J. Mina
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/02/2022.02.01.22269931.abstract
AB Background The emergence of the highly transmissible COVID-19 variant, omicron, has resulted in high numbers of breakthrough infections, including among healthcare workers (HCW). Recent CDC recommendations now allow healthcare workers to return to work after day 5 if symptoms have improved, without a requirement for a negative rapid antigen test (RAT).Methods Fully vaccinated and non-immunocompromised HCW at a large, urban, academic medical center who tested positive for COVID-19 starting in late December, 2021 (when omicron was the predominant circulating strain) were allowed to return to work early if all symptoms had resolved excepting mild, intermittent cough and/or lingering loss of taste/smell, provided a rapid antigen test was negative upon return. Those with negative tests were allowed to return to work with the stipulations that they wear an N95 at all times and take breaks and eat meals apart from others. Those with positive tests on first attempt could return 24-48 hours later to test again for as many days as needed to achieve a negative result or until they completed 10 days of restriction from work.Results Between January 2, 2022 and January 12, 2022 there were 309 total RAT done on 260 separate HCW on day 5-10 of illness. Overall, 43% (134 of 309) of all RAT were positive between days 5-10. The greatest percent positive RAT was noted among HCW returning for their first test on day 6 (58%). The rate of positivity was greatest (58%) among HCW returning for their first test on day 6. HCW returning on day 8 and 9 were less likely to have a positive test (26%, 19/74). In RAT positive HCW returning for their first test on days 5 or 6 (and for which line intensity was recorded) 49% (25/51) were recorded as having the darkest intensity on their RAT. HCW who test positive on their first test most often remained positive on their second test, with 56% of second tests, aggregated across all days 6-10, remaining positive. Over all first tests performed on days 5-10, boosted HCW were nearly twice as likely to test RAT positive: 53% (75 out of 141) of boosted HCW tested positive.Discussion More than 40% of vaccinated HCW who felt well enough to work still had positive RAT tests when presenting for a first test between days 5 and 10. Boosted individuals were nearly 3x as likely to result positive on day 5, their first day eligible for return, and ∼2x as likely to result positive on first RAT overall. New guidance provides clearance to exit isolation after 5 days from symptom onset, without the need for a negative rapid antigen test to exit, as long as symptoms are beginning to resolve. Per CDC, the guidance was driven by prior studies, mostly collected before Omicron and before most people were vaccinated or infected, that reported on symptom onset beginning one or more days after peak virus loads. In such an instance, where isolation based on symptom onset often did not begin until peak virus load was already attained, then release from isolation at 5 days would be appropriate. However, reports showing much earlier onset of symptoms, coupled with our own results here demonstrate that the relationship between symptom onset and peak virus load has changed, and 5 days from symptom onset may no longer be an appropriate window to end isolation without a negative rapid antigen test to support safe exit.Conclusion These results indicate that a substantial proportion of individuals with COVID-19 are likely still contagious after day 5 of illness regardless of symptom status. Early liberation from isolation should be undertaken only with the understanding that inclusion of individuals on day 6-10 of illness in community or work settings may increase the risk of COVID-19 spread to others which, in turn, may undermine the intended benefits to staffing by resulting in more sick workers.Competing Interest StatementDr. Mina is Chief Science Officer of eMed, a digital healthcare technology company that verifies and reports at home tests. He is also on the board of 4Catalyzer, a biotechnology catalyzer that supports start-ups, including Detect, a company that makes a molecular COVID test.Funding StatementThis study was undertaken as part of routine clinical work and was not funded.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Waiver of need for IRB or ethics approval based on QI determination was made by Andrew Davis, MD of the University of Chicago Medicine Quality Committe for work presented here. University of Chicago IRB (ethics committee) previously agreed to the process for determining QI used by the Quality Committee at University of Chicago Medicine. Additional swab collection for culture of SARS-CoV-2 proposed in this piece (but not reported here) is under review by the University of Chicago IRB.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDeidentified data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.