Mass screening for asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

“Evidence is growing that transmission arises overwhelmingly from people with symptomatic infections and their contacts.”

By Angela E Raffle, consultant in public health1,  Mike Gill, former regional director of public health2 BMJ

A misguided policy, unlikely to reduce transmission

Project Moonshot1 has now extended to twice weekly self-testing at home for all adults in England, and soon Scotland.2 Yet the UK is already performing more coronavirus tests per case detected than anywhere in the world3 with little effect according to the Public Accounts Committee.4 The cost and benefit from adding universal testing are unknown, and no plans are in place to measure them.

In 60 years of screening healthy people, effectiveness has never yet been achieved just by offering tests. What matters is a tightly designed pathway that can be shown to deliver positive outcomes in real life. Forty million cervical cytology screening tests from 1964 to 1985 achieved no net benefit.5 Deaths from cervical cancer fell only after the introduction of a quality assured programme that reached those at highest risk and took appropriate action after each test result.6

Ten years of infant phenylketonuria screening similarly had no impact until systems and quality assurance were introduced.7 Response in a pandemic requires speed, but without training and proficiency testing for those taking and reading samples, plus a robust process for ensuring appropriate actions follow a test result, SARS-CoV-2 self-testing by asymptomatic members of the public is unlikely to reduce transmission.

We have no empirical data to support mass SARS-CoV-2 screening, and home self-testing has not been evaluated.8 The December surge of infections in Liverpool, where trained testers screened a quarter of the population, was no lower than in other cities without screening.9 The effects of screening university students from December remain unclear, and data have not been made public.10 Care homes conducting asymptomatic testing have struggled to adhere to protocols and experienced no fewer outbreaks than care homes without asymptomatic testing.11 From early March, testing of millions of schoolchildren was accompanied by a short lived rise in the ascertainment of school age cases, but there is no evidence of change in the trajectory of case rates in older age groups, suggesting a lack of effect on onward transmission.12

Wrong focus

A key justification cited by government for mass testing of asymptomatic people at low risk is the assertion that “up to one third” of cases are symptomless, although it doesn’t define what is meant by a case or by symptoms. Evidence is growing that transmission arises overwhelmingly from people with symptomatic infections and their contacts.1314 The priority continues to be improving the testing programme for everyone with symptoms, no matter how minor or non-specific, and all their contacts. From 31 March 2021 it became policy in England for contacts of someone who has tested positive for covid-19 to have polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.

In addition to concerns about the cost and ineffectiveness of asymptomatic testing, self-reported results from asymptomatic people are already skewing nationwide data on test numbers, cases, and positivity rates, making trends harder to interpret. False positive results will be a problem when prevalence is low, even with PCR confirmation. And the temptation for people with symptoms to opt for unsupervised, rapid, and lower sensitivity self-testing may lead to false reassurance, as happens with other screening,15 leading to potential increases in transmission.

The UK is an outlier globally in placing such emphasis on asymptomatic testing. From May 2020, ministers focused their efforts on reaching targets for test numbers, creating centrally commissioned “lighthouse” laboratories and disregarding the quality of the tests or of the overall programme.416 They also commissioned a separate initiative for evaluating rapid tests,17 bypassing highly effective and flexible processes and expertise18 both in developing screening programmes—the UK National Screening Programmes—and in evaluating diagnostic tests—for example, the medtech and in vitro diagnostics cooperatives funded by the National Institute for Health Research. The challenge was framed as “find a valid test and roll it out as quickly as possible” rather than “devise best systems for using testing to help contain the pandemic.”

The issue is not, and never has been, about whether to test but about how to do it most effectively.19 The World Health Organization has never advised testing low risk people. The EU Council advice on rapid tests20 focuses on those with high pre-test probability, such as contacts of cases or where test positivity rates are >10%. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is explicit on limitations of rapid tests in low prevalence settings and is careful to distinguish diagnostic uses from screening.21 Innova, the UK’s preferred screening test, is not included on the EU or CDC recommended lists.

The challenge now is to use the past year’s learning, the new laboratory capacity, and the availability of rapid tests to best effect. Current efforts are undermined by secrecy,10 quality failures,16 underused capacity,4 and a misplaced focus on low yield uses. Both the laboratories and the rapid tests could be targeted to deliver a substantially more effective and cost effective testing service founded on the public service principles of sound evaluation, strong ethics, high quality, and full transparency.

Footnotes

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage

References

    1. Iacobucci G, 
    2. Coombes R
    . Covid-19: Government plans to spend £100bn on expanding testing to 10 million a day. BMJ2020;370:m3520. . doi:10.1136/bmj.m3520 pmid:32907851FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
  1. Department of Health and Social Care. New campaign urges public to get tested twice a week. Press release, 9 Apr 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-campaign-urges-public-to-get-tested-twice-a-week
  2. Our World in Data. Tests conducted per new confirmed case of covid-19. 17 Apr 2021. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/tests-per-confirmed-case-daily-smoothed?tab=chart&country=GBR~DNK~FRA~DEU~FIN~JPN~ESP~USA~SVK
  3. House of Commons Public Accounts Select Committee. Test, track & trace (part 1). Forty-seventh report of session 2019-21. 2021. https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4976/documents/50058/default/
  4. Cancer of the cervix: death by incompetence. Lancet1985;2:363-4.pmid:2862517PubMedGoogle Scholar
    1. Sasieni P, 
    2. Cuzick J, 
    3. Farmery E
    . Accelerated decline in cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales. Lancet1995;346:1566-7. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92099-4 pmid:7491080CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    1. Raffle A, 
    2. Mackie A, 
    3. Gray JAM
    . Case study 2.1: phenylketonuria screening: development of a system. In: Screening: evidence and practice.Oxford University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
    1. Dinnes J, 
    2. Deeks JJ, 
    3. Adriano A, 
    4. et al., 
    5. Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group
    . Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2020;8:CD013705.pmid:32845525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Liverpool covid-19 community testing pilot—interim evaluation report. 2020. https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/livacuk/coronavirus/Liverpool,Community,Testing,Pilot,Interim,Evaluation.pdf
    1. Iacobucci G
    . Covid-19: Mass testing at UK universities is haphazard and unscientific, finds BMJ investigation. BMJ2021;372:n848. doi:10.1136/bmj.n848 pmid:33789865FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
    1. Tulloch J, 
    2. Micocci M, 
    3. Buckle P, 
    4. et al
    . Enhanced lateral flow testing strategies in care homes are associated with poor adherence and were insufficient to prevent covid-19 outbreaks: results from a mixed methods implementation study.SSRN2021. [Preprint.] doi:10.2139/ssrn.3822257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Independent Scientific Advisory Group. Weekly briefing 26 Mar 2021. https://www.independentsage.org/weekly-briefing-26th-march-2021/
    1. Buitrago-Garcia D, 
    2. Egli-Gany D, 
    3. Counotte MJ, 
    4. et al
    . Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: a living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med2020;17:e1003346. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003346 pmid:32960881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    1. Park SY, 
    2. Kim YM, 
    3. Yi S, 
    4. et al
    . Coronavirus disease outbreak in call center, South Korea. Emerg Infect Dis2020;26:1666-70. doi:10.3201/eid2608.201274 pmid:32324530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
    1. Henry RL, 
    2. Boulton TJ, 
    3. Roddick LG
    . False negative results on newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. J Paediatr Child Health1990;26:150-1. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.1990.tb02413.x pmid:2206615CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  7. BBC. Undercover: inside the Covid testing lab. Panorama 29 Mar 2021. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000tqjj/panorama-undercover-inside-the-covid-testing-lab
  8. Department of Health and Social Care. Protocol for evaluation of rapid diagnostic assays for specific SARS-CoV-2 antigens (lateral flow devices). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessment-and-procurement-of-coronavirus-covid-19-tests/protocol-for-evaluation-of-rapid-diagnostic-assays-for-specific-sars-cov-2-antigens-lateral-flow-devices
    1. Hogarth S, 
    2. Löblová O
    . Regulatory niches: diagnostic reform as a process of fragmented expansion. Evidence from the UK 1990-2018. Soc Sci Med2020;113363. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113363 pmid:32980173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Raffle A, Taylor-Phillips S, Sitch A. Mapping the outcomes of covid-19 testing reveals the best opportunities for system improvement. BMJ Opinion 9 Apr 2021. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/04/09/mapping-the-outcomes-of-covid-19-testing-programmes-reveals-the-best-opportunities-for-improvement/
  10. Council of the European Union. Council recommendation on a common framework for the use and validation of rapid antigen tests and the mutual recognition of COVID-19 test results in the EU. 2021. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5451-2021-INIT/en/pdf
  11. CDC. 24/7 Saving lives, protecting people. Overview of testing for SARS-CoV-2. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/testing-overview.html#TestingInfection

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s