Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Reliable testing for SARS-CoV-2 is key for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We estimate diagnostic accuracy for nucleic acid and antibody tests 5 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and compare with manufacturer-reported accuracy.

We reviewed the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid and antibody tests based on 93,757 test results from 151 published studies and 20,205 new test results from 12 countries in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA).

Pooling the results and considering only results with 95% confidence interval width ≤ 5%, we found four nucleic acid tests, including one point-of-care test and three antibody tests, with a clinical sensitivity ≥ 95% for at least one target population (hospitalised, mild or asymptomatic, or unknown). Nine nucleic acid tests and 25 antibody tests, 12 of them point-of-care tests, had a clinical specificity of ≥ 98%. Three antibody tests achieved both thresholds. Evidence for nucleic acid point-of-care tests remains scarce at present, and sensitivity varied substantially. Study heterogeneity was low for eight of 14 sensitivity and 68 of 84 specificity results with confidence interval width ≤ 5%, and lower for nucleic acid tests than antibody tests. Manufacturer-reported clinical performance was significantly higher than independently assessed in 11 of 32 and four of 34 cases, respectively, for sensitivity and specificity, indicating a need for improvement in this area.

Continuous monitoring of clinical performance within more clearly defined target populations is needed.

The detection of SARS-CoV-2 with rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) has become an important tool to identify infected people and break infection chains. These RDT are usually based on antigen detection in a lateral flow approach.

We aimed to establish a comprehensive specimen panel for the decentralised technical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests.

While for PCR diagnostics the validation of a PCR assay is well established, there is no common validation strategy for antigen tests, including RDT. In this proof-of-principle study we present the establishment of a panel of 50 pooled clinical specimens that cover a SARS-CoV-2 concentration range from 1.1 × 10⁹ to 420 genome copies per mL of specimen. The panel was used to evaluate 31 RDT in up to six laboratories.

Our results show that there is considerable variation in the detection limits and the clinical sensitivity of different RDT. We show that the best RDT can be applied to reliably identify infectious individuals who present with SARS-CoV-2 loads down to 10⁶ genome copies per mL of specimen. For the identification of infected individuals with SARS-CoV-2 loads corresponding to less than 10⁶ genome copies per mL, only three RDT showed a clinical sensitivity of more than 60%.

Sensitive RDT can be applied to identify infectious individuals with high viral loads but not to identify all infected individuals.

Detailed information on symptom duration and temporal course of patients with mild COVID-19 was scarce at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We aimed to determine the longitudinal course of clinical symptoms in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Berlin, Germany.

Between March and May 2020, 102 confirmed COVID-19 cases in home isolation notified in Berlin, Germany, were sampled using total population sampling. Data on 25 symptoms were collected during telephone consultations (a maximum of four consultations) with each patient. We collected information on prevalence and duration of symptoms for each day of the first 2 weeks after symptom onset and for day 30 and 60 after symptom onset.

Median age was 35 years (range 18–74), 57% (58/102) were female, and 37% (38/102) reported having comorbidities. During the first 2 weeks, most common symptoms were malaise (94%, 92/98), headache (71%, 70/98), and rhinitis (69%, 68/98). Malaise was present for a median of 11 days (IQR 7–14 days) with 35% (34/98) of cases still reporting malaise on day 14. Headache and muscle pain mostly occurred during the first week, whereas dysosmia and dysgeusia mostly occurred during the second week. Symptoms persisted in 41% (39/95) and 20% (18/88) of patients on day 30 and 60, respectively.

Our study shows that a significant proportion of non-hospitalised COVID-19 cases endured symptoms for at least 2 months. Further research is needed to assess the frequency of long-term adverse health effects in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public perceptions and behaviours have had to adapt rapidly to new risk scenarios and radical behavioural restrictions.

To identify major drivers of acceptance of protective behaviours during the 4-week transition from virtually no COVID-19 cases to the nationwide lockdown in Germany (3–25 March 2020).

A serial cross-sectional online survey was administered weekly to ca 1,000 unique individuals for four data collection rounds in March 2020 using non-probability quota samples, representative of the German adult population between 18 and 74 years in terms of age × sex and federal state (n = 3,910). Acceptance of restrictions was regressed on sociodemographic variables, time and psychological variables, e.g. trust, risk perceptions, self-efficacy. Extraction of homogenous clusters was based on knowledge and behaviour.

Acceptance of restrictive policies increased with participants’ age and employment in the healthcare sector; cognitive and particularly affective risk perceptions were further significant predictors. Acceptance increased over time, as trust in institutions became more relevant and trust in media became less relevant. The cluster analysis further indicated that having a higher education increased the gap between knowledge and behaviour. Trust in institutions was related to conversion of knowledge into action.

Identifying relevant principles that increase acceptance will remain crucial to the development of strategies that help adjust behaviour to control the pandemic, possibly for years to come. Based on our findings, we provide operational recommendations for health authorities regarding data collection, health communication and outreach.

The occupational risk of COVID-19 may be different in the first versus second epidemic wave.

To study whether employees in occupations that typically entail close contact with others were at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation during the first and second epidemic wave before and after 18 July 2020, in Norway.

We included individuals in occupations working with patients, children, students, or customers using Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08) codes. We compared residents (3,559,694 on 1 January 2020) in such occupations aged 20–70 years (mean: 44.1; standard deviation: 14.3 years; 51% men) to age-matched individuals in other professions using logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, birth country and marital status.

Nurses, physicians, dentists and physiotherapists had 2–3.5 times the odds of COVID-19 during the first wave when compared with others of working age. In the second wave, bartenders, waiters, food counter attendants, transport conductors, travel stewards, childcare workers, preschool and primary school teachers had ca 1.25–2 times the odds of infection. Bus, tram and taxi drivers had an increased odds of infection in both waves (odds ratio: 1.2–2.1). Occupation was of limited relevance for the odds of severe infection, here studied as hospitalisation with the disease.

Our findings from the entire Norwegian population may be of relevance to national and regional authorities in handling the epidemic. Also, we provide a knowledge foundation for more targeted future studies of lockdowns and disease control measures.