Explore the vast range of titles available.

School-based COVID-19 contacts in England have been asked to self-isolate at home, missing key educational opportunities. We trialled daily testing of contacts as an alternative to assess whether this resulted in similar control of transmission, while allowing more school attendance. We did an open-label, cluster-randomised, controlled trial in secondary schools and further education colleges in England. Schools were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-isolation of school-based COVID-19 contacts for 10 days (control) or to voluntary daily lateral flow device (LFD) testing for 7 days with LFD-negative contacts remaining at school (intervention). Randomisation was stratified according to school type and size, presence of a sixth form, presence of residential students, and proportion of students eligible for free school meals. Group assignment was not masked during procedures or analysis. Coprimary outcomes in all students and staff were COVID-19-related school absence and symptomatic PCR-confirmed COVID-19, adjusted for community case rates, to estimate within-school transmission (non-inferiority margin <50% relative increase). Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis using quasi-Poisson regression, also estimating complier average causal effects (CACE). This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN18100261. Between March 18 and May 4, 2021, 204 schools were taken through the consent process, during which three decided not to participate further. 201 schools were randomly assigned (control group n=99, intervention group n=102) in the 10-week study (April 19–May 10, 2021), which continued until the pre-appointed stop date (June 27, 2021). 76 control group schools and 86 intervention group schools actively participated; additional national data allowed most non-participating schools to be included in analysis of coprimary outcomes. 2432 (42·4%) of 5763 intervention group contacts participated in daily contact testing. There were 657 symptomatic PCR-confirmed infections during 7 782 537 days-at-risk (59·1 per 100 000 per week) in the control group and 740 during 8 379 749 days-at-risk (61·8 per 100 000 per week) in the intervention group (intention-to-treat adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0·96 [95% CI 0·75–1·22]; p=0·72; CACE aIRR 0·86 [0·55–1·34]). Among students and staff, there were 59 422 (1·62%) COVID-19-related absences during 3 659 017 person-school-days in the control group and 51 541 (1·34%) during 3 845 208 person-school-days in the intervention group (intention-to-treat aIRR 0·80 [95% CI 0·54–1·19]; p=0·27; CACE aIRR 0·61 [0·30–1·23]). Daily contact testing of school-based contacts was non-inferior to self-isolation for control of COVID-19 transmission, with similar rates of symptomatic infections among students and staff with both approaches. Infection rates in school-based contacts were low, with very few school contacts testing positive. Daily contact testing should be considered for implementation as a safe alternative to home isolation following school-based exposures. UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread to nearly every corner of the globe, causing societal instability. The resultant coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leads to fever, sore throat, cough, chest and muscle pain, dyspnoea, confusion, anosmia, ageusia and headache. These can progress to life-threatening respiratory insufficiency, also affecting the heart, kidney, liver and nervous systems. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is often confused with that of influenza and seasonal upper respiratory tract viral infections. Due to available treatment strategies and required containments, rapid diagnosis is mandated. This Review brings clarity to the rapidly growing body of available and in-development diagnostic tests, including nanomaterial-based tools. It serves as a resource guide for scientists, physicians, students and the public at large. This Review highlights the progress that has been made in the development of diagnostic tools for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the fight against COVID-19.

As one of the major approaches in combating the COVID-19 pandemics, the availability of specific and reliable assays for the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome and its proteins is essential to identify the infection in suspected populations, make diagnoses in symptomatic or asymptomatic individuals, and determine clearance of the virus after the infection. For these purposes, use of the quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) for detection of the viral nucleic acid remains the most valuable in terms of its specificity, fast turn-around, high-throughput capacity, and reliability. It is critical to update the sequences of primers and probes to ensure the detection of newly emerged variants. Various assays for increased levels of IgG or IgM antibodies are available for detecting ongoing or past infection, vaccination responses, and persistence and for identifying high titers of neutralizing antibodies in recovered individuals. Viral genome sequencing is increasingly used for tracing infectious sources, monitoring mutations, and subtype classification and is less valuable in diagnosis because of its capacity and high cost. Nanopore target sequencing with portable options is available for a quick process for sequencing data. Emerging CRISPR-Cas-based assays, such as SHERLOCK and AIOD-CRISPR, for viral genome detection may offer options for prompt and point-of-care detection. Moreover, aptamer-based probes may be multifaceted for developing portable and high-throughput assays with fluorescent or chemiluminescent probes for viral proteins. In conclusion, assays are available for viral genome and protein detection, and the selection of specific assays depends on the purposes of prevention, diagnosis and pandemic control, or monitoring of vaccination efficacy. During the COVID-19 pandemics, sensitive and reliable assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection are essential for screening the population, identifying asymptomatic individuals, making diagnoses, monitoring treatment responses, and determining viral clearance. This review summarizes the principles, advantages, disadvantages, and specific applications of currently available assays for detection of the viral nucleotide, genome or proteins, as well as host antibody responses, and provide overall guidelines for selection of optimal assays for specific usage.

COVID-19 is a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 capable of causing mild to severe infections in humans. Since its first appearance in China in December 2019, the pandemic has spread rapidly throughout the world. Despite considerable efforts made to contain the disease, the virus has continued its prevalence in many countries with varying degrees of clinical manifestations. To contain this pandemic, collaborative approach involving accurate diagnosis, epidemiology, surveillance, and prophylaxis is essential. However, proper diagnosis using rapid technologies plays a crucial role. With increasing incidence of COVID-19 cases, the accurate and early detection of the SARS-CoV-2 is need of the hour for effective prevention and management of COVID-19 cases as well as to curb its spread. RT-qPCR assay is considered to be the gold standard for the early detection of virus, but this protocol has limited application to use as bedside test because of its technical complexity. To address these challenges, several POC assays have been developed to facilitate the COVID-19 diagnosis outside the centralized testing laboratories as well to accelerate the clinical decision making with a least turnaround time. Hence, in this report, we review different nucleic acid-based and serological techniques available for the diagnosis and effective prevention of COVID-19.Key points• Provides comprehensive information on the different diagnostic tools available for COVID-19• Nucleic acid based tests or antigen detection tests are used for diagnostic purpose• Accurate diagnosis is essential for the efficient management of COVID-19

Suppressing infections of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will probably require the rapid identification and isolation of individuals infected with the virus on an ongoing basis. Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT–PCR) tests are accurate but costly, which makes the regular testing of every individual expensive. These costs are a challenge for all countries around the world, but particularly for low-to-middle-income countries. Cost reductions can be achieved by pooling (or combining) subsamples and testing them in groups 1 – 7 . A balance must be struck between increasing the group size and retaining test sensitivity, as sample dilution increases the likelihood of false-negative test results for individuals with a low viral load in the sampled region at the time of the test 8 . Similarly, minimizing the number of tests to reduce costs must be balanced against minimizing the time that testing takes, to reduce the spread of the infection. Here we propose an algorithm for pooling subsamples based on the geometry of a hypercube that, at low prevalence, accurately identifies individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 in a small number of tests and few rounds of testing. We discuss the optimal group size and explain why, given the highly infectious nature of the disease, largely parallel searches are preferred. We report proof-of-concept experiments in which a positive subsample was detected even when diluted 100-fold with negative subsamples (compared with 30–48-fold dilutions described in previous studies 9 – 11 ). We quantify the loss of sensitivity due to dilution and discuss how it may be mitigated by the frequent re-testing of groups, for example. With the use of these methods, the cost of mass testing could be reduced by a large factor. At low prevalence, the costs decrease in rough proportion to the prevalence. Field trials of our approach are under way in Rwanda and South Africa. The use of group testing on a massive scale to monitor infection rates closely and continually in a population, along with the rapid and effective isolation of people with SARS-CoV-2 infections, provides a promising pathway towards the long-term control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A mathematical algorithm for population-wide screening of SARS-CoV-2 infections using pooled parallel RT–PCR tests requires considerably fewer tests than individual testing procedures and has minimal delays in the identification of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Purpose Newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) has great potential to improve pediatric care. Parental interest and concerns about genomics are relatively unexplored. Understanding why parents decline research consent for nGS may reveal implementation barriers. Methods We evaluated parental interest in a randomized trial of nGS in well-baby and intensive care unit nursery settings. Interested families attended an informational enrollment session (ES) with a genetic counselor prior to consenting. Reason(s) for declining participation and sociodemographic associations were analyzed. Results Of 3860 eligible approached families, 10% attended ES, 67% of whom enrolled. Of 1760 families queried for decline reasons, 58% were uninterested in research. Among 499 families considering research, principal reasons for decline prior to ES included burdensome study logistics (48%), feeling overwhelmed postpartum (17%), and lack of interest/discomfort with genetic testing (17%). Decliners after ES more often cited concerns about privacy/insurability (41%) and uncertain/unfavorable results (23%). Conclusion Low interest in research and study logistics were major initial barriers to postpartum enrollment and are likely generic to many postpartum research efforts. Concerns over privacy and result implications were most commonly cited in decliners after ES. Understanding parental concerns around research nGS may inform future integration of nGS into newborn screening, predictive testing, and pediatric diagnostics.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing emerged in the early 2000s as a means of allowing consumers to access information on their genetics without the involvement of a physician. Although early models of DTC were popular with consumers, they were controversial in medical and regulatory circles. In this article, we trace the history of DTC genetic testing, discuss its regulatory implications, and describe the emergence of a new hybrid model we call DTC 2.0.

Digital network-based methods may enhance peer distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits, but interventions that can optimize this approach are needed. We aimed to assess whether monetary incentives and peer referral could improve a secondary distribution program for HIVST among men who have sex with men (MSM) in China. Between October 21, 2019 and September 14, 2020, a 3-arm randomized controlled, single-blinded trial was conducted online among 309 individuals (defined as index participants) who were assigned male at birth, aged 18 years or older, ever had male-to-male sex, willing to order HIVST kits online, and consented to take surveys online. We randomly assigned index participants into one of the 3 arms: (1) standard secondary distribution (control) group (n = 102); (2) secondary distribution with monetary incentives (SD-M) group (n = 103); and (3) secondary distribution with monetary incentives plus peer referral (SD-M-PR) group (n = 104). Index participants in 3 groups were encouraged to order HIVST kits online and distribute to members within their social networks. Members who received kits directly from index participants or through peer referral links from index MSM were defined as alters. Index participants in the 2 intervention groups could receive a fixed incentive ($3 USD) online for the verified test result uploaded to the digital platform by each unique alter. Index participants in the SD-M-PR group could additionally have a personalized peer referral link for alters to order kits online. Both index participants and alters needed to pay a refundable deposit ($15 USD) for ordering a kit. All index participants were assigned an online 3-month follow-up survey after ordering kits. The primary outcomes were the mean number of alters motivated by index participants in each arm and the mean number of newly tested alters motivated by index participants in each arm. These were assessed using zero-inflated negative binomial regression to determine the group differences in the mean number of alters and the mean number of newly tested alters motivated by index participants. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. We also conducted an economic evaluation using microcosting from a health provider perspective with a 3-month time horizon. The mean number of unique tested alters motivated by index participants was 0.57 ± 0.96 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) in the control group, compared with 0.98 ± 1.38 in the SD-M group (mean difference [MD] = 0.41),and 1.78 ± 2.05 in the SD-M-PR group (MD = 1.21). The mean number of newly tested alters motivated by index participants was 0.16 ± 0.39 (mean ± SD) in the control group, compared with 0.41 ± 0.73 in the SD-M group (MD = 0.25) and 0.57 ± 0.91 in the SD-M-PR group (MD = 0.41), respectively. Results indicated that index participants in intervention arms were more likely to motivate unique tested alters (control versus SD-M: incidence rate ratio [IRR = 2.98, 95% CI = 1.82 to 4.89, p-value < 0.001; control versus SD-M-PR: IRR = 3.26, 95% CI = 2.29 to 4.63, p-value < 0.001) and newly tested alters (control versus SD-M: IRR = 4.22, 95% CI = 1.93 to 9.23, p-value < 0.001; control versus SD-M-PR: IRR = 3.49, 95% CI = 1.92 to 6.37, p-value < 0.001) to conduct HIVST. The proportion of newly tested testers among alters was 28% in the control group, 42% in the SD-M group, and 32% in the SD-M-PR group. A total of 18 testers (3 index participants and 15 alters) tested as HIV positive, and the HIV reactive rates for alters were similar between the 3 groups. The total costs were $19,485.97 for 794 testers, including 450 index participants and 344 alter testers. Overall, the average cost per tester was $24.54, and the average cost per alter tester was $56.65. Monetary incentives alone (SD-M group) were more cost-effective than monetary incentives with peer referral (SD-M-PR group) on average in terms of alters tested and newly tested alters, despite SD-M-PR having larger effects. Compared to the control group, the cost for one more alter tester in the SD-M group was $14.90 and $16.61 in the SD-M-PR group. For newly tested alters, the cost of one more alter in the SD-M group was $24.65 and $49.07 in the SD-M-PR group. No study-related adverse events were reported during the study. Limitations include the digital network approach might neglect individuals who lack internet access. Monetary incentives alone and the combined intervention of monetary incentives and peer referral can promote the secondary distribution of HIVST among MSM. Monetary incentives can also expand HIV testing by encouraging first-time testing through secondary distribution by MSM. This social network-based digital approach can be expanded to other public health research, especially in the era of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) ChiCTR1900025433.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is currently a serious global health threat. While conventional laboratory tests such as quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), serology tests, and chest computerized tomography (CT) scan allow diagnosis of COVID-19, these tests are time-consuming and laborious, and are limited in resource-limited settings or developing countries. Point-of-care (POC) biosensors such as chip-based and paper-based biosensors are typically rapid, portable, cost-effective, and user-friendly, which can be used for COVID-19 in remote settings. The escalating demand for rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 presents a strong need for a timely and comprehensive review on the POC biosensors for COVID-19 that meet ASSURED criteria: Affordable, Sensitive, Specific, User-friendly, Rapid and Robust, Equipment-free, and Deliverable to end users. In the present review, we discuss the importance of rapid and early diagnosis of COVID-19 and pathogenesis of COVID-19 along with the key diagnostic biomarkers. We critically review the most recent advances in POC biosensors which show great promise for the detection of COVID-19 based on three main categories: chip-based biosensors, paper-based biosensors, and other biosensors. We subsequently discuss the key benefits of these biosensors and their use for the detection of antigen, antibody, and viral nucleic acids. The commercial POC biosensors for COVID-19 are critically compared. Finally, we discuss the key challenges and future perspectives of developing emerging POC biosensors for COVID-19. This review would be very useful for guiding strategies for developing and commercializing rapid POC tests to manage the spread of infections.Graphical abstract