National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Research Institute of Science for Safety and Sustainability, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Center for Infectious Disease Education and Research, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 29;17(3):e0266197. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266197. eCollection 2022.
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.
在这项研究中,我们定量评估了针对感染采取的措施将小型运动队与普通人群隔离开来的情况下,用于 COVID-19 检测的系统的有效性。假设了两种类型的群体,并用传染病的隔室模型来模拟每个群体内部的感染动态。一组(A 组)由在一个相对较小的区域内进行多个比赛的国内职业运动队组成。每两周定期进行一次聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测,将通过检测或检查症状后无法隔离的感染个体数量定义为风险。另一组(B 组)由参加大型集会活动(如奥运会和残奥会)的跨国团队组成。这些团队在目的地隔离两周;频繁进行检测和症状检查,任何感染的个体都被隔离。隔离期后参加比赛的感染个体数量被定义为风险。在 A 组中,通过定期进行的 PCR 检测发现的感染个体数量低于通过检查症状发现的感染个体数量,这表明每两周进行一次常规检测效果并不理想。在 B 组中,每天进行 PCR 检测效果最佳,其次是每天进行抗原检测。双检测,即对抗原检测呈阳性的个体进行额外的 PCR 检测,效果最差,与每隔一天进行 PCR 检测的效果相当。这些结果表明,重复检测不一定会增加感染个体的检出率。