COVID-19 testing systems and their effectiveness in small, semi-isolated groups for sports events

Abstract

In this study, we quantitatively assessed the effectiveness of systems for COVID-19 testing in small groups of sport teams that are semi-isolated from the general population by countermeasures against infection. Two types of group were assumed, and the dynamics of infection within each group was modeled by using a compartment model of infectious disease. One group (Group A) comprised domestic professional sports teams that play many games over a season while remaining within a relatively small region. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests were routinely conducted once every 2 weeks, and the number of infected individuals that could not be quarantined after identification by testing or checking for symptoms was defined as the risk. The other group (Group B) comprised teams that travel across borders for mass-gathering events like the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The teams were isolated for 2 weeks at their destination; frequent testing and checking for symptoms was conducted, and any infected individuals were quarantined. The number of infected individuals participating in games after the isolation period was defined as the risk. In Group A, the number of infected individuals detected by routinely conducted PCR testing was lower than the number of infected individuals detected by checking for symptoms, indicating that routine testing every 2 weeks was not very effective. In Group B, daily PCR testing was the most effective, followed by daily antigen testing. Dual testing, in which individuals with a positive antigen test were given an additional PCR test, was the least effective with an effect equal to PCR testing every other day. These results indicate that repeated testing does not necessarily increase the detection of infected individuals.

Sensitivity of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 during the Omicron variant outbreak among players and staff members of the Japan Professional Football League and clubs: a retrospective observational study

“…The results of our study, which showed that the sensitivity of the rapid antigen test compared with the PCR test was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.73), may be used in combination with a model analysis to provide the fundamental knowledge required to establish a highly effective and efficient testing system. For example, a model analysis has estimated that the use of frequent rapid antigen testing is more effective than infrequent PCR testing in reducing the infection risk among populations such as professional sports players and staff members 15. Under the assumption of an incubation period of 5 days, an R 0 of 4, and isolation with a test positive result, the infection risk (defined as ‘number of infected individuals remaining at the end of the 2 week isolation’) among populations, in which a daily rapid antigen test with a sensitivity compared with a PCR test of 0.6 that was conducted for 2 weeks, was estimated to be as effective as when PCR testing was performed every 3 days 15.…”

“…For example, a model analysis has estimated that the use of frequent rapid antigen testing is more effective than infrequent PCR testing in reducing the infection risk among populations such as professional sports players and staff members 15. Under the assumption of an incubation period of 5 days, an R 0 of 4, and isolation with a test positive result, the infection risk (defined as ‘number of infected individuals remaining at the end of the 2 week isolation’) among populations, in which a daily rapid antigen test with a sensitivity compared with a PCR test of 0.6 that was conducted for 2 weeks, was estimated to be as effective as when PCR testing was performed every 3 days 15. Similarly, the sensitivity of 0.5 and 0.7 was equivalent to a PCR test being performed once every 4 days and every 2 days, respectively.…”

Sensitivity of rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 during the Omicron variant outbreak

“…For example, a model analysis has estimated that the use of frequent rapid antigen testing is more effective than infrequent PCR testing in reducing the infection risk among populations such as professional sport players and staff members 15 . Under the assumption of an incubation period of five days and an R 0 of 4, the infection risk (defined as "number of infected individuals remaining at the end of the two-week isolation") among population, in which a daily rapid antigen test with a sensitivity compared with a PCR test of 0.6 that was conducted for two weeks, was estimated to be as effective as when PCR testing was performed every three days 15 . Similarly, the sensitivity of 0.5 and 0.7 was equivalent to a PCR test being performed once every four days and every two days, respectively.…”

“…The results of this study, which showed that the sensitivity of the rapid antigen test compared with the PCR test was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.54–0.72), may be used in combination with a model analysis to provide the fundamental knowledge required to establish a highly effective and efficient testing system. For example, a model analysis has estimated that the use of frequent rapid antigen testing is more effective than infrequent PCR testing in reducing the infection risk among populations such as professional sport players and staff members 15 . Under the assumption of an incubation period of five days and an R 0 of 4, the infection risk (defined as “number of infected individuals remaining at the end of the two-week isolation”) among population, in which a daily rapid antigen test with a sensitivity compared with a PCR test of 0.6 that was conducted for two weeks, was estimated to be as effective as when PCR testing was performed every three days 15 .…”

Case Report: Assessing COVID-19 Transmission in Professional Volleyball in Germany, September to December 2020: An Epidemiological Study

“…Recommending a more frequent testing strategy goes in line with the findings of Kamo et al, who investigated the effectiveness of different COVID-19 testing strategies. They stated that frequently up to daily testing by PCR can reduce the number of SARS-CoV-2 infected athletes by almost 80 % and that daily testing is an effective measure strategy (Kamo et al, 2022 ). Mina et al underlined the importance of high frequently testing (Mina et al, 2020 ).…”