PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - David RM Smith
AU  - Audrey Duval
AU  - Koen B Pouwels
AU  - Didier Guillemot
AU  - Jérôme Fernandes
AU  - Bich-Tram Huynh
AU  - Laura Temime
AU  - Lulla Opatowski
ED  - ,
TI  - Optimizing COVID-19 surveillance in long-term care facilities: a modelling study
AID  - 10.1101/2020.04.19.20071639
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.04.19.20071639
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/13/2020.04.19.20071639.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/13/2020.04.19.20071639.full
AB  - Background Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are vulnerable to COVID-19 outbreaks. Timely epidemiological surveillance is essential for outbreak response, but is complicated by a high proportion of silent (non-symptomatic) infections and limited testing resources.Methods We used a stochastic, individual-based model to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission along detailed inter-individual contact networks describing patient-staff interactions in real LTCF settings. We distributed nasopharyngeal swabs and RT-PCR tests using clinical and demographic indications, and evaluated the efficacy and resource-efficiency of a range of surveillance strategies, including group testing (sample pooling) and testing cascades, which couple (i) testing for multiple indications (symptoms, admission) with (ii) random daily testing.Results In the baseline scenario, randomly introducing SARS-CoV-2 into a 170-bed LTCF led to large outbreaks, with a cumulative 86 (6-224) infections after three weeks of unmitigated transmission. Efficacy of symptom-based screening was limited by (i) lags between infection and symptom onset, and (ii) silent transmission from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections. Testing upon admission detected up to 66% of patients silently infected upon LTCF entry, but missed potential introductions from staff. Random daily testing was more effective when targeting patients than staff, but was overall an inefficient use of limited resources. At high testing capacity (>1 test/10 beds/day), cascades were most effective, with a 22-52% probability of detecting outbreaks prior to any nosocomial transmission, and 38-63% prior to first onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Conversely, at low capacity (<1 test/85 beds/day), pooling randomly selected patients in a daily group test was most effective (9-15% probability of detecting outbreaks prior to transmission; 30-44% prior to symptoms). The most efficient strategy compared to the reference was to pool individuals with any COVID-like symptoms, requiring only 5-7 additional tests and 17-24 additional swabs to detect outbreaks 5-6 days earlier, prior to an additional 14-18 infections.Conclusions Group testing is an effective and efficient COVID-19 surveillance strategy for resource-limited LTCFs. Cascades are even more effective given ample testing resources. Increasing testing capacity and updating surveillance protocols accordingly could facilitate earlier detection of emerging outbreaks, informing a need for urgent intervention in settings with ongoing nosocomial transmission.Competing Interest StatementLO reports grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. All other authors report no competing interests.Funding StatementThe work was supported directly by internal resources from the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research, the Institut Pasteur, the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, and the University of Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines / University of Paris Saclay. This study received funding from the French Government Investissement dAvenir program, Laboratoire dExcellence Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases (Grant ANR10LABX62 IBEID). DS is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Doctoral Foreign Study Award (Funding Reference Number 164263) as well as the French government through its National Research Agency project SPHINX17CE36000801. KP is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England (grant number NIHR200915).Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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.YesN/A