Safety of SARS-CoV-2 test-to-stay in daycare: a regression discontinuity in time analysis
Dewald, F.; Steger, G.; Fish, I.; Torre-Lage, I.; Hellriegel, C.; Milz, E.; Kolb-Bastigkeit, A.; Heger, E.; Fries, M.; Buess, M.; Marizy, N.; Michaelis, B.; Suarez, I.; Quintanares, G. H. R.; Pirkl, M.; Aigner, A.; Obserste-Frielinghaus, M.; Hellmich, M.; Wong, A.; Camilo Orduz, J.; Faetkenheuer, G.; Doetsch, J.; Kossow, A.; Moench, E.-M.; Quade, G.; Neumann, U.; Kaiser, R.; Schranz, M.; Klein, F.
Show abstract
Background and ObjectivesTest-to-stay concepts apply serial testing of children in daycare after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 without use of quarantine. This study aims to assess safety of a test-to-stay screening in daycare facilities. Methods714 daycare facilities and approximately 50,000 children [≤]6 years in Cologne, Germany participated in a SARS-CoV-2 Pool-PCR screening from March 2021 to April 2022. The screening initially comprised post-exposure quarantine and was adapted to a test-to-stay approach during its course. To assess safety of the test-to-stay approach, we explored potential changes in frequencies of infections among children following the adaptation to the test-to-stay approach by applying regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) analyses. To this end, PCR-test data were linked with routinely collected data on reported infections in children and analyzed using ordinary least squares regressions. Results219,885 Pool-PCRs and 352,305 Single-PCRs were performed. 6,440 (2.93%) Pool-PCRs tested positive, and 17,208 infections in children were reported. We estimated that during a period of 30 weeks, the test-to-stay concept avoided between 7 and 20 days of quarantine per eligible daycare child. RDiT revealed a 26% reduction (Exp. Coef: 0.74, CI:0.52;1.06) in infection frequency among children and indicated no significant increase attributable to the test-to-stay approach. This result was not sensitive to adjustments for 7-day incidence, season, SARS-CoV-2 variant, and socioeconomic status. ConclusionOur analyses provide evidence that suggest safety of the test-to-stay approach compared to traditional quarantine measures. This approach offers a promising option to avoid use of quarantine after exposure to respiratory pathogens in daycare settings.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Non-occupational and occupational factors associated with specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Hospital Workers – a multicentre cross-sectional study 93%
- Self-testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection with rapid antigen tests 92%
- Daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19: a double-blind placebo controlled randomized trial in healthcare workers 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Prevalence of RT-PCR-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection at schools: First results from the Austrian School-SARS-CoV-2 Study 95%
- The Omicron SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in England during February 2022 93%
- Risk and severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections during 2020-2022 in Vojvodina, Serbia: a population-level study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: Insights from a Population-based Serological Survey 94%
- Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in France: results from nationwide serological surveillance 93%
- Persistent humoral immunity in children and adolescents throughout the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020 to July 2022): a prospective school-based cohort study (Ciao Corona) in Switzerland 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors among frontline health care workers in Paris, France: the SEROCOV prospective cohort study 93%
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Saint Petersburg, Russia: a population-based study 93%
- Results from Canton Grisons of Switzerland Suggest Repetitive Testing Reduces SARS-CoV-2 Incidence (February-March 2021) 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.