Risk-based decision-making related to preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 testing in the setting of GI endoscopy: management of risks, evidence, and behavioral health economics.
Journal
Gastrointestinal endoscopy
ISSN: 1097-6779
Titre abrégé: Gastrointest Endosc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0010505
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
received:
14
03
2022
revised:
06
05
2022
accepted:
28
05
2022
pubmed:
12
6
2022
medline:
26
10
2022
entrez:
11
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Controversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases. A scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs. In a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing. Under all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Controversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases.
METHODS
A scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs.
RESULTS
In a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing.
CONCLUSIONS
Under all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35690149
pii: S0016-5107(22)01736-9
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.05.023
pmc: PMC9174097
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
735-742.e3Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.
Références
Gut. 2021 Mar;70(3):537-543
pubmed: 32690602
Endoscopy. 2022 Feb;54(2):211-216
pubmed: 34933373
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Sep;92(3):735-742
pubmed: 32360301
Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Jan;51:92-97
pubmed: 34717211
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;67(12):1291-4
pubmed: 25034198
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Dec 19;1:80
pubmed: 14687421
Gastroenterology. 2021 Sep;161(3):1011-1029.e11
pubmed: 34029569
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jan 26;118(4):
pubmed: 33431650
J Assoc Med Microbiol Infect Dis Can. 2020 Dec 31;5(4):223-234
pubmed: 36340059
Endoscopy. 2021 Feb;53(2):156-161
pubmed: 33080647
Public Health. 2021 Sep;198:230-237
pubmed: 34482101
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Aug;7:100148
pubmed: 34124709
J Med Virol. 2022 Mar;94(3):1190-1195
pubmed: 34617606
Lancet. 2021 May 15;397(10287):1819-1829
pubmed: 33964222
Dig Liver Dis. 2021 Jul;53(7):801-802
pubmed: 34001446
Clin Endosc. 2021 Jul;54(4):522-525
pubmed: 33657784
Med J Aust. 2008 Jan 7;188(1):26-8
pubmed: 18205559
Emerg Med J. 2020 Sep;37(9):572-575
pubmed: 32651176
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Feb;36(2):239-252
pubmed: 29273843
Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;115(9):1376-1379
pubmed: 32701733
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020 Jul;14(4):365-373
pubmed: 32246890
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Jan;22(1):43-55
pubmed: 34480857
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Aug;17(8):444-446
pubmed: 32405033
Gastroenterology. 2020 Aug;159(2):759
pubmed: 32590006
Gut. 2020 Nov;69(11):1925-1927
pubmed: 32321857
Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan;37(1):37-38
pubmed: 33060395
Endosc Int Open. 2021 May;9(5):E701-E705
pubmed: 33937511
EBioMedicine. 2022 Jan;75:103774
pubmed: 34959134
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul;35(7):1117-1123
pubmed: 32511791
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Aug;109:118-122
pubmed: 34242764
Gut. 2020 Jun;69(6):991-996
pubmed: 32241897
Endosc Int Open. 2021 Sep 16;9(10):E1556-E1560
pubmed: 34540550
Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(11):1103-9
pubmed: 11735677
Gut. 2021 Oct;70(10):2019-2020
pubmed: 33541864
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Apr 30;7:190
pubmed: 32426363
J Biomed Inform. 2001 Oct;34(5):365-76
pubmed: 12123153
JAMA. 2021 Mar 2;325(9):821-822
pubmed: 33507218
Gut. 2021 Dec;70(12):2227-2229
pubmed: 33762432