Universal PCR and antibody testing demonstrate little to no transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a rural community.
Journal
medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences
Titre abrégé: medRxiv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101767986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Aug 2020
17 Aug 2020
Historique:
entrez:
26
8
2020
pubmed:
26
8
2020
medline:
26
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The absence of systematic surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 has curtailed accurate appraisal of transmission intensity. Our objective was to perform case detection of an entire rural community to quantify SARS-CoV-2 transmission using PCR and antibody testing. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of the prevalence and cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the rural town of Bolinas, California (population 1,620), four weeks following shelter-in-place orders. Residents and county essential workers were tested between April 20th-24th, 2020. Prevalence by PCR and seroprevalence combining data from two forms of antibody testing were performed in parallel (Abbott ARCHITECT IgG to nucleocapsid protein and in-house IgG ELISA to the receptor binding domain). Of 1,891 participants, 1,312 were confirmed Bolinas residents (>80% community ascertainment). Zero participants were PCR positive. Assuming 80% sensitivity, it would have been unlikely to observe these results (p<0.05) if there were >3 active infections in the community. Based on antibody results, estimated prevalence of prior infection was 0.16% (95% CrI: 0.02%, 0.46%). Seroprevalence estimates using only one of the two tests would have been higher, with greater uncertainty. The positive predictive value (PPV) of a positive result on both tests was 99.11% (95% CrI: 95.75%, 99.94%), compared to PPV 44.19%-63.32% (95% CrI range 3.25%-98.64%) if only one test was utilized. Four weeks following shelter-in-place, active and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in a rural Northern California community was extremely rare. In this low prevalence setting, use of two antibody tests increased the PPV and precision of seroprevalence estimates.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The absence of systematic surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 has curtailed accurate appraisal of transmission intensity. Our objective was to perform case detection of an entire rural community to quantify SARS-CoV-2 transmission using PCR and antibody testing.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of the prevalence and cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the rural town of Bolinas, California (population 1,620), four weeks following shelter-in-place orders. Residents and county essential workers were tested between April 20th-24th, 2020. Prevalence by PCR and seroprevalence combining data from two forms of antibody testing were performed in parallel (Abbott ARCHITECT IgG to nucleocapsid protein and in-house IgG ELISA to the receptor binding domain).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 1,891 participants, 1,312 were confirmed Bolinas residents (>80% community ascertainment). Zero participants were PCR positive. Assuming 80% sensitivity, it would have been unlikely to observe these results (p<0.05) if there were >3 active infections in the community. Based on antibody results, estimated prevalence of prior infection was 0.16% (95% CrI: 0.02%, 0.46%). Seroprevalence estimates using only one of the two tests would have been higher, with greater uncertainty. The positive predictive value (PPV) of a positive result on both tests was 99.11% (95% CrI: 95.75%, 99.94%), compared to PPV 44.19%-63.32% (95% CrI range 3.25%-98.64%) if only one test was utilized.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Four weeks following shelter-in-place, active and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in a rural Northern California community was extremely rare. In this low prevalence setting, use of two antibody tests increased the PPV and precision of seroprevalence estimates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32839781
doi: 10.1101/2020.08.15.20175786
pmc: PMC7444294
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Preprint
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K24 AI144048
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : T32 AI007641
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : T32 AI060530
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : UM1 AI069496
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateIn
Références
Nat Commun. 2018 Oct 18;9(1):4324
pubmed: 30337529
JAMA. 2020 Apr 27;:
pubmed: 32338732
Biometrics. 1980 Mar;36(1):167-71
pubmed: 7370371
Curr Protoc Microbiol. 2020 Jun;57(1):e100
pubmed: 32302069
JAMA. 2020 Apr 17;:
pubmed: 32301959
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 28;:
pubmed: 32221519
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;26(8):
pubmed: 32396505
Lancet. 2020 Jun 27;395(10242):1973-1987
pubmed: 32497510
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Aug 21;:
pubmed: 32821935
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):2163-2164
pubmed: 32283004
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;26(7):
pubmed: 32364890
Nat Med. 2020 Jul;26(7):1033-1036
pubmed: 32398876
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 May 08;:
pubmed: 32382743
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):458-464
pubmed: 32298251
JAMA. 2020 Apr 29;:
pubmed: 32347898
Science. 2020 Apr 24;368(6489):350-351
pubmed: 32327574
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 24;:
pubmed: 32579379
JAMA. 2020 Apr 17;:
pubmed: 32301958
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):833-836
pubmed: 32306864
JAMA. 2020 Mar 31;:
pubmed: 32232421
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):2081-2090
pubmed: 32329971
JAMA. 2020 Feb 21;:
pubmed: 32083643
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Apr 28;:
pubmed: 32343355
Science. 2020 Jun 5;368(6495):1060-1061
pubmed: 32414781
JAMA. 2020 Mar 11;:
pubmed: 32159775
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):970-971
pubmed: 32003551
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):425-429
pubmed: 32604404
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Aug;39(8):1419-1425
pubmed: 32543923
Prev Vet Med. 1998 Feb 6;34(1):1-17
pubmed: 9541947
Euro Surveill. 2020 Mar;25(10):
pubmed: 32183930