ESCMID guidelines on testing for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic individuals to prevent transmission in the health care setting

Abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Current thromboprophylaxis in urological cancer patients during COVID pandemic

“…In unvaccinated patients treated due to COVID-19 in the Intensive Care Unit, the thromboembolic incidence is 20–43% [ 17 , 18 ]. Bearing in mind the risk of an asymptomatic course of COVID-19 infection, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases suggested testing for COVID-19 in all patients before the planned surgeries (within at most 48–72 hours) independent of their vaccination status [ 19 ]. Unfortunately, the is no data available on the effect of COVID-19 infection on radical prostatectomy, cystectomy, nor nephrectomy, therefore we can base only on the general surgical experiences [ 16 ].…”

Contributory conditions for unexpected COVID-19 cases and nosocomial COVID-19 infection cases identified from systematic investigation in a French University Hospital

“…Management of wandering patients is challenging for HCWs because it is both impossible to make them strictly respect barrier measures to protect other patients (wearing mask, limiting wandering, limiting physical contact with other patients), and to limit their freedom of movement through physical constraint due to ethical questions [6] . Of note, a majority of NC was screened for other reason than symptoms, highlighting the importance of effective and sustainable screening strategies to prevent cross-transmission from asymptomatic carriers [7] . We pointed the limits of screening strategies, due to RT-PCR false negative results on admission which lead HCWs to lift COVID-19 precautionary measures for symptomatic patients [8] .…”

Point-of-care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen among symptomatic vs. asymptomatic persons: Testing for COVID-19 vs. infectivity

“…As these recommendations are based on a very low certainty of evidence, Ag-RGT testing is considered an alternative when NAAT are not available ( 23 ). In asymptomatic individuals at risk of exposure, testing is recommended in various settings ( 24 ) however, recommendations on the testing strategy is inconsistent or no recommendation is given due to the lack of evidence ( 22 , 23 ). Thus, the benefits of PoC Ag-RDT at a population health level remain uncertain as available data is scarce and inconsistent, mainly due to deficient study designs ( 28 ).…”

“…However, given the low experience and information gaps, controversy arouse on the adequacy of first- and second-generation Ag-RDT as tool to diagnose COVID-19 in people without respiratory infection symptoms ( 22 , 23 ) and many Ag-RDT, including Veritor, remain to be clinically validated in the asymptomatic population ( 18 , 19 ). Still, testing of asymptomatic individuals is recommended in some settings ( 24 ) and NAAT techniques may not represent an appropriate standard reference in this population as they do not distinguish infectious and non-infectious virus, thus failing to identify persons with non-infectious SARS-CoV-2 infection in whom isolation could be spared. In contrast, recent studies suggest an association between positive Ag-RDT results and cell culture positivity, as well as the presence of subgenomic RNA, a surrogate for the presence of viable virus ( 25 , 26 ).…”