Objective: Current COVID-19 guidelines recommend symptom-based screening and regular nasopharyngeal (NP) testing for healthcare personnel in high-risk settings. We sought to estimate case detection percentages with various routine NP and saliva testing frequencies. Design: Simulation modeling study. Methods: We constructed a sensitivity function based on the average infectiousness profile of symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases to determine the probability of being identified at the time of testing. This function was fitted to reported data on the percent positivity of symptomatic COVID-19 patients using NP testing. We then simulated a routine testing program with different NP and saliva testing frequencies to determine case detection percentages during the infectious period, as well as the presymptomatic stage. Results: Routine biweekly NP testing, once every 2 weeks, identified an average of 90.7% (SD, 0.18) of cases during the infectious period and 19.7% (SD, 0.98) during the presymptomatic stage. With a weekly NP testing frequency, the corresponding case detection percentages were 95.9% (SD, 0.18) and 32.9% (SD, 1.23), respectively. A 5-day saliva testing schedule had a similar case detection percentage as weekly NP testing during the infectious period, but identified ~10% more cases (mean, 42.5%; SD, 1.10) during the presymptomatic stage. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the utility of routine noninvasive saliva testing for frontline healthcare workers to protect vulnerable patient populations. A 5-day saliva testing schedule should be considered to help identify silent infections and prevent outbreaks in nursing homes and healthcare facilities.

Background Numerous countries have imposed strict travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, contributing to a large socioeconomic burden. The long quarantines that have been applied to contacts of cases may be excessive for travel policy. Methods We developed an approach to evaluate imminent countrywide COVID-19 infections after 0–14-day quarantine and testing. We identified the minimum travel quarantine duration such that the infection rate within the destination country did not increase compared to a travel ban, defining this minimum quarantine as “sufficient.” Findings We present a generalised analytical framework and a specific case study of the epidemic situation on November 21, 2021, for application to 26 European countries. For most origin-destination country pairs, a three-day or shorter quarantine with RT-PCR or antigen testing on exit suffices. Adaptation to the European Union traffic-light risk stratification provided a simplified policy tool. Our analytical approach provides guidance for travel policy during all phases of pandemic diseases. Interpretation For nearly half of origin-destination country pairs analysed, travel can be permitted in the absence of quarantine and testing. For the majority of pairs requiring controls, a short quarantine with testing could be as effective as a complete travel ban. The estimated travel quarantine durations are substantially shorter than those specified for traced contacts. Funding EasyJet (JPT and APG), the Elihu endowment (JPT), the Burnett and Stender families’ endowment (APG), the Notsew Orm Sands Foundation (JPT and APG), the National Institutes of Health (MCF), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (SMM) and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada EIDM-MfPH (SMM).

ObjectiveCurrent COVID-19 guidelines recommend symptom-based screening and regular nasopharyngeal (NP) testing for healthcare personnel in high-risk settings. We sought to estimate case detection percentages with various routine NP and saliva testing frequencies.DesignSimulation modelling study.MethodsWe constructed a sensitivity function based on the average infectiousness profile of symptomatic COVID-19 cases to determine the probability of being identified at the time of testing. This function was fitted to reported data on the percent positivity of symptomatic COVID-19 patients using NP testing. We then simulated a routine testing program with different NP and saliva testing frequencies to determine case detection percentages during the infectious period, as well as the pre-symptomatic stage.ResultsRoutine bi-weekly NP testing, once every two weeks, identified an average of 90.7% (SD: 0.18) of cases during the infectious period and 19.7% (SD: 0.98) during the pre-symptomatic stage. With a weekly NP testing frequency, the corresponding case detection percentages were 95.9% (SD: 0.18) and 32.9% (SD: 1.23), respectively. A 5-day saliva testing schedule had a similar case detection percentage as weekly NP testing during the infectious period, but identified about 10% more cases (mean: 42.5%; SD: 1.10) during the pre-symptomatic stage.ConclusionOur findings highlight the utility of routine non-invasive saliva testing for frontline healthcare workers to protect vulnerable patient populations. A 5-day saliva testing schedule should be considered to help identify silent infections and prevent outbreaks in nursing homes and healthcare facilities.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, has displaced more than a quarter of the population. Assessing disease burdens among displaced people is instrumental in informing global public health and humanitarian aid efforts. We estimated the disease burden in Ukrainians displaced both within Ukraine and to other countries by combining a spatiotemporal model of forcible displacement with age- and gender-specific estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, cancer, HIV, and tuberculosis (TB) in each of Ukraine’s 629 raions (i.e., districts). Among displaced Ukrainians as of May 13, we estimated that more than 2.63 million have CVDs, at least 615,000 have diabetes, and over 98,500 have cancer. In addition, more than 86,000 forcibly displaced individuals are living with HIV, and approximately 13,500 have TB. We estimated that the disease prevalence among refugees was lower than the national disease prevalence before the invasion. Accounting for internal displacement and healthcare facilities impacted by the conflict, we estimated that the number of people per hospital has increased by more than two-fold in some areas. As regional healthcare systems come under increasing strain, these estimates can inform the allocation of critical resources under shifting disease burdens.

A major policy tool used by governments during the COVID-19 pandemic has been the imposition of quarantine and testing requirements on international travel, extending even to the extreme approach of closing national borders. However, both approaches have far-reaching socioeconomic implications. Therefore, we evaluated the implications of quarantine and testing compared to the reductions achieved by border closure on in-country imminent transmission based on country-specific prevalence, daily incidence, vaccine coverage, immunity, age-demographics, and travel flow. We considered travel quarantines of 0–14 days with and without RT-PCR or antigen testing for COVID-19 in 31 European countries. Our analysis demonstrates that for the vast majority of origin-destination country pairs, there are combinations of short-duration quarantine and testing that are as effective as border closure. Furthermore, for most origin-destination country pairs, travel with testing and no quarantine will reduce imminent in-country transmission more than would border closure. We find that the duration of quarantine is predominantly influenced by country prevalence and quantity of travel. With higher prevalence in the origin country compared to the destination country, the minimum duration of quarantine increases from zero to beyond fourteen days (at which point border closure would likely be practical). Asymmetry in travel flow can also cause an increase or decrease of infections within the destination country, respectively resulting in longer and shorter quarantines. We apply the same framework to genetic variants of concern to limit their spread as a consequence of travel; the widespread variant of concern B.1.1.7 yields similar sufficient quarantine and testing regimes, whereas the lower-frequency, geographically heterogeneous 501Y.V2 variant requires longer, more specific quarantines. We show that adaptation of our analytical framework to the European Union traffic-light country risk stratification provides a simplified policy tool. Lastly, we examined the effect of travel quarantine and testing or border closure policy on hospitalization in the destination country. We find that hospitalization rates in the destination country are far more sensitive to changes in the vaccine coverage than on the duration of the travel quarantine or the country of origin. Our analysis provides rigorous guidelines enabling travel between most countries during early and late phases of pandemic disease.