PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Rebecca Earnest
AU  - Christine Chen
AU  - Chrispin Chaguza
AU  - Nathan D. Grubaugh
AU  - Madeline S. Wilson
AU  - the Yale COVID-19 Resulting and Isolation Team
TI  - Daily Rapid Antigen Testing in a University Setting to Inform COVID-19 Isolation Duration Policy
AID  - 10.1101/2022.03.11.22272264
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.03.11.22272264
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/13/2022.03.11.22272264.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/13/2022.03.11.22272264.full
AB  - Importance The suitability of the currently recommended 5-day COVID-19 isolation period remains unclear in an Omicron-dominant landscape. Early data suggest high positivity via rapid antigen test beyond day 5, but evidence gaps remain regarding optimal isolation duration and the best use of limited RATs to exit isolation.Objective To determine the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 infected persons who remain positive via RAT on isolation day 5+ and assess possible factors associated with isolation duration.Design We evaluated daily rapid antigen test case series data from 324 persons in a managed isolation program who initially tested positive between January 1 and February 11, 2022, an Omicron-dominant period. Arrival tests and twice-weekly screening were mandated. Positive persons isolated and began mandatory daily self-testing on day 5 until testing negative. Trained staff proctored exit testing.Setting A mid-sized university in the United States.Participants University students in isolation.Main Outcomes and Measures The percentage of persons remaining positive on isolation day 5 and each subsequent day. The association between possible prognostic factors and isolation duration as measured by event-time-ratios (ETR).Results We found 47% twice-weekly screeners and 26-28% less frequent screeners remained positive on day 5, with the percentage approximately halving each additional day. Having a negative test ≥ 10 days before diagnosis (ETR 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.96)) and prior infection > 90 days (ETR 0.50 (95% CI 0.33-0.76)) were significantly associated with shorter isolation. Symptoms before or at diagnosis (ETR 1.13 (95% CI 1.02-1.25)) and receipt of 3 vaccine doses (ETR 1.20 (95% CI 1.04-1.39)) were significantly associated with prolonged isolation. However, these factors were associated with duration of isolation, not infection, and could reflect how early infections were detected.Conclusions and Relevance A high percentage of university students during an Omicron-dominant period remained positive after the currently recommended 5-day isolation, highlighting possible onward transmission risk. Persons diagnosed early in their infections or using symptom onset as their isolation start may particularly require longer isolations. Significant factors associated with isolation duration should be further explored to determine relationships with infection duration.Question What percentage of SARS-CoV-2 infected persons remain positive via rapid antigen test on days 5+ of isolation?Findings In this case series of 324 university students, 47% of twice-weekly screeners and 26-28% of less frequent screeners remained positive via rapid antigen on isolation day 5, with the percent still positive approximately halving with each subsequent day.Meaning While isolation duration decisions are complex, our study adds to growing evidence that a 5-day isolation may be 1-2 days too short to sufficiently reduce the onward transmission risk, particularly for those in dense settings or among vulnerable populations.Competing Interest StatementNDG is a paid consultant for Tempus Labs and the National Basketball Association and has received speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. Funding StatementThis work is supported by the Yale Center for Clinical Investigation (YCCI) Multidisciplinary Pre-Doctoral Training Program.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:The Institutional Review Board from the Yale University Human Research Protection Program determined that the use of information, including information about biospecimens, is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained directly or through identifiers linked to the subject and thus is exempt from IRB review of human subjects research (IRB Protocol ID: 2000032111).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.YesAll original code and data have been deposited at Github and are publicly available (https://github.com/rebecca-earnest/2022_paper_isolation-rapid-antigen). Any additional information required to reanalyze the data reported in this paper is available from the corresponding author upon request. https://github.com/rebecca-earnest/2022_paper_isolation-rapid-antigen