Background The extent to which children and adolescents contribute to SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains not fully understood. Novel high-capacity testing methods may provide real-time epidemiological data in educational settings helping to establish a rational approach to prevent and minimize SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We investigated whether pooling of samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR is a sensitive and feasible high-capacity diagnostic strategy for surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infections in schools. Methods In this study, students and school staff of 14 educational facilities in Germany were tested sequentially between November 9 and December 23, 2020, two or three times per week for at least three consecutive weeks. Participants were randomized for evaluation of two different age adjusted swab sampling methods (oropharyngeal swabs or buccal swabs compared to saliva swabs using a ‘lolli method’). Swabs were collected and pooled for SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR. Individuals of positive pooled tests were retested by RT-qPCR the same or the following day. Positive individuals were quarantined while the SARS-CoV-2 negative individuals remained in class with continued pooled RT-qPCR surveillance. The study is registered with the German Clinical Trials register (registration number: DRKS00023911). Findings 5,537 individuals were eligible and 3970 participants were enroled and included in the analysis. In students, a total of 21,978 swabs were taken and combined in 2218 pooled RT-qPCR tests. We detected 41 positive pooled tests (1·8%) leading to 36 SARS-CoV-2 cases among students which could be identified by individual re-testing. The cumulative 3-week incidence for primary schools was 564/100,000 (6/1064, additionally 1 infection detected in week 4) and 1249/100,000 (29/2322) for secondary schools. In secondary schools, there was no difference in the number of SARS-CoV-2 positive students identified from pooled oropharyngeal swabs compared to those identified from pooled saliva samples (lolli method) (14 vs. 15 cases; 1·3% vs. 1·3%; OR 1.1; 95%-CI 0·5–2·5). A single secondary school accounted for 17 of 36 cases (47%) indicating a high burden of asymptomatic prevalent SARS-CoV-2 cases in the respective school and community. Interpretation In educational settings, SARS-CoV-2 screening by RT-qPCR-based pooled testing with easily obtainable saliva samples is a feasible method to detect incident cases and observe transmission dynamics. Funding Federal Ministry of education and research (BMBF; Project B-FAST in “NaFoUniMedCovid19”; registration number: 01KX2021).
Systematic SARS-CoV-2 testing is a valuable tool for infection control and surveillance. However, broad application of high sensitive RT-qPCR testing in children is often hampered due to unpleasant sample collection, limited RT-qPCR capacities and high costs. Here, we developed a high-throughput approach (‘Lolli-Method’) for SARS-CoV-2 detection in children, combining non-invasive sample collection with an RT-qPCR-pool testing strategy. SARS-CoV-2 infections were diagnosed with sensitivities of 100% and 93.9% when viral loads were >106 copies/ml and >103 copies/ml in corresponding Naso-/Oropharyngeal-swabs, respectively. For effective application of the Lolli-Method in schools and daycare facilities, SEIR-modeling indicated a preferred frequency of two tests per week. The developed test strategy was implemented in 3,700 schools and 698 daycare facilities in Germany, screening over 800,000 individuals twice per week. In a period of 3 months, 6,364 pool-RT-qPCRs tested positive (0.64%), ranging from 0.05% to 2.61% per week. Notably, infections correlated with local SARS-CoV-2 incidences and with a school social deprivation index. Moreover, in comparison with the alpha variant, statistical modeling revealed a 36.8% increase for multiple (≥2 children) infections per class following infections with the delta variant. We conclude that the Lolli-Method is a powerful tool for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and can support infection control in schools and daycare facilities.
Background School-level infection control measures in Germany during the early Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic differed across the 16 federal states and lacked a dependable evidence base, with available evidence limited to regional data restricted to short phases of the pandemic. This study aimed to assess the (a) infection risks in students and staff; (b) transmission risks and routes in schools; (c) effects of school-level infection control measures on school and population infection dynamics; and (d) contribution of contacts in schools to population cases. Methods and findings For this retrospective observational study, we used German federal state (NUTS-2) and county (NUTS-3) data from public health and education agencies from March 2020 to April 2022. We assessed (a) infection risk as cumulative risk and crude risk ratios and (b) secondary attack rates (SARs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We used (c) multiple regression analysis for the effects of infection control measures such as reduced attendance, mask mandates, and vaccination coverage as absolute reduction in case incidence per 100,000 inhabitants per 14 days and in percentage relative to the population, and (d) infection dynamic modelling to determine the percentage contribution of school contacts to population cases. We included (a) nationwide NUTS-2 data from calendar weeks (W) 46-50/2020 and W08/2021-W15/2022 with 3,521,964 cases in students and 329,283 in teachers; (b) NUTS-3 data from W09-25/2021 with 85,788 student and 9,427 teacher cases; and (c) detailed data from 5 NUTS-3 regions from W09/2020 to W27/2021 with 12,814 cases (39% male, 37% female; median age 14, range 5 to 63), 43,238 contacts and 4,165 secondary cases for students (for teachers, 14,801 [22% male, 50% female; median age 39, range 16 to 75], 5,893 and 472). Infection risk (a) for students and teachers was higher than the population risk in all phases of normal presence class and highest in the early 2022 omicron wave with 30.6% (95% CI 30.5% to 32.6%) of students and 32.7% (95% CI 32.6% to 32.8%) of teachers infected in Germany. SARs (b) for students and staff were below 5% in schools throughout the study period, while SARs in households more than doubled from 13.8% (95% CI 10.6% to 17.6%) W21-39/2020 to 28.7% (95% CI 27% to 30.4%) in W08-23/2021 for students and 10.9% (95% CI 7% to 16.5%) to 32.7% (95% CI 28.2% to 37.6%) for staff. Most contacts were reported for schools, yet most secondary cases originated in households. In schools, staff predominantly infected staff. Mandatory surgical mask wearing during class in all schools was associated with a reduction in the case incidence of students and teachers (c), by 56/100,000 persons per 14 days (students: 95% CI 47.7 to 63.4; teachers: 95% CI 39.6 to 71.6; p < 0.001) and by 29.8% (95% CI 25% to 35%, p < 0.001) and 24.3% (95% CI 13% to 36%, p < 0.001) relative to the population, respectively, as were reduced attendance and higher vaccination coverage. The contribution of contacts in schools to population cases (d) was 2% to 20%, lowest during school closures/vacation and peaked during normal presence class intervals, with the overall peak early during the omicron wave. Limitations include underdetection, misclassification of contacts, interviewer/interviewee dependence of contact-tracing, and lack of individual-level confounding factors in aggregate data regression analysis. Conclusion In this study, we observed that open schools under hygiene measures and testing strategies contributed up to 20% of population infections during the omicron wave early 2022, and as little as 2% during vacations/school closures; about a third of students and teachers were infected during the omicron wave in early 2022 in Germany. Mandatory mask wearing during class in all school types and reduced attendance models were associated with a reduced infection risk in schools.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.