COVID-19 control regularly refers to the control of others with symptoms of the disease, while the test refers to the control of others who have no symptoms of infection. In the United States, limited control capacity at the onset of the pandemic has led states like Massachusetts to check only those with severe symptoms and those known to have COVID-19; However, having COVID-19 control for all other people with symptoms of the disease, also since the expansion of screening systems for the entire population, adding up those without symptoms, can simply reduce hospitalizations and deaths, allowing the resumption of social activity.
“Massachusetts experienced a primary coVID-19 outbreak as of March 2020, and the epidemic is now fairly well controlled, questions remain about how to optimally implement COVID testing, whether in our current scenario and in other contexts, and communities, where new infections continue. increase,” says Anne Neilan, MDArray MPH, a researcher in the Divisions of General Pediatrics and Infectious Diseases at MGH and the Medical Practice Assessment Center, who led the study. “While some have argued that testing will have to be incredibly valueable, others recommend that sensitivity be sacrificed if testing is fast, economical, common, and widely available. “
The exam used a dynamic transmission style developed through members of the study team (the “CEACOV style”) to analyze the expected effects of various other COVID-19 verification and detection methods across the board. the other people in Massachusetts, the polymerase chain in the lab. reaction controls (PCRs). The PCR test uses a pattern taken from the nose or mouth (usually a nasal swab or saliva pattern), which is then sent to a lab looking for the virus that causes COVID-19. Model-based studies found that repeated screening of the entire population would lead to maximum favorable clinical outcomes, avoiding the highest number of infections, hospitalizations and, in the end, deaths. This was true in a wide variety of scenarios, from minimization to immediate accumulation in the number of new instances in line with the day. Such a detection strategy can also be effective depending on the charge, depending on the check charge and the frequency of detection.
“Based on the costs that peak labs currently qualify for PCR verification, with our existing grades of new COVID-19 instances in Massachusetts, the ultimate cost-effective strategy remains to verify only others with COVID-19 symptoms. , for Massachusetts from now on, this includes reviewing everyone else with symptoms, not just others with severe symptoms,” said lead study co-author Andrea Ciaranello, MD, MPH, a researcher in the Division of Infectious Diseases at MGH. “However, in regions where cases are increasing, normal detection of the entire population, while costly, will in fact be of very intelligent value. This is true even with existing verification costs of around $50 and it will be more true if the costs of checks may be particularly lower . . . There are artistic tactics to reduce verification costs, for example through emerging techniques such as less expensive reagents, gathering samples in the lab, or thoroughly allocating unused city verification capability between towns or regions. “
“When the pandemic slows down, if check prices can drop to $5 or less, repeated detection of others without COVID symptoms would reduce infections and deaths, and would be cost-effective,” Neilan adds. “Our knowledge recommends it even now,” expanding detection and detection features will have to remain at the center of national efforts. “Because the study modeled the use of PCR controls in the lab, researchers did not evaluate the imaginable use of even less delicate and less expensive controls, such as on-site verification of fitness services (such as emergency care centers), schools, or workplaces. Many of these controls have been put on the market, but are not yet available for use in those contexts.
Ciaranello adds: “It is vital to note that these methods involve repeated testing. Examining an organization of others only once, even if it’s an engaging snapshot, is a technique that many other people will overlook that will infect others in the future. Because of this, we also found that screening was only once less effective use of fitness resources in most cases than methods that employ repeated testing. “
“It’s also worth not being able to deploy the tests quickly,” Says Nielan. “At the beginning of the pandemic, we had difficulty providing tests even for others with COVID-19 symptoms. If extended PCR testing had been widely available in Massachusetts from April to May 2020, our style suggests that only one hundred,000 infections and about one hundred deaths would have been prevented this month alone. “