Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36228640›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Respiratory medicine2022

Daily use of lateral flow devices by contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases to enable exemption from isolation compared with standard self-isolation to reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

Nicola K Love, Derren R Ready, Charlie Turner, Neville Q Verlander, Clare E French, Alex F Martin, Tina B Sorensen, Soeren Metelmann, Sarah Denford, G James Rubin and 4 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies: A scoping review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Nicola K LoveUK Health Security Agency, UK.
Derren R ReadyUK Health Security Agency, UK; Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Charlie TurnerUK Health Security Agency, UK.
Neville Q VerlanderUK Health Security Agency, UK.
Clare E FrenchHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Alex F MartinHealth Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London, London, UK.
Tina B SorensenUK Health Security Agency, UK.
Soeren MetelmannUK Health Security Agency, UK.
Sarah DenfordHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
G James RubinHealth Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London, London, UK.
Lucy YardleyHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; School of Psychological Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Richard AmlôtUK Health Security Agency, UK; Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at King's College London, London, UK.
Susan HopkinsUK Health Security Agency, UK.
Isabel OliverUK Health Security Agency, UK; Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Electronic address: isabel.oliver@phe.gov.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the UK, during the study period (April to July, 2021), all contacts of people with COVID-19 were required to self-isolate for 10 days, which had adverse impacts on individuals and society. Avoiding the need to self-isolate for those who remain uninfected would be beneficial. We investigated whether daily use of lateral flow devices (LFDs) to test for SARS-CoV-2, with removal of self-isolation for 24 h if negative, could be a safe alternative to self-isolation as a means to minimise onward transmission of the virus.

methodsWe conducted a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial in adult contacts identified by COVID-19 contact tracing in England. Consenting participants were randomly assigned to self-isolation (single PCR test, 10-day isolation) or daily contact testing (DCT; seven LFD tests, two PCR tests, no isolation if negative on LFD); participants from a single household were assigned to the same group. Participants were prospectively followed up, with the effect of each intervention on onward transmission established from routinely collected NHS Test and Trace contact tracing data for participants who tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period and tertiary cases arising from their contacts (ie, secondary contacts). The primary outcome of the study was the attack rate, the percentage of secondary contacts (close contacts of SARS-CoV-2-positive study participants) who became COVID-19 cases (tertiary cases) in each group. Attack rates were derived from Bernoulli regression models using Huber-White (robust) sandwich estimator clustered standard errors. Attack rates were adjusted for household exposure, vaccination status, and ability to work from home. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9%. The primary analysis was a modified intention-to-treat analysis excluding those who actively withdrew from the study as data from these participants were no longer held. This study is registered with the Research Registry (number 6809). Data collection is complete; analysis is ongoing.

findingsBetween April 29 and July 28, 2021, 54 923 eligible individuals were enrolled in the study, with final group allocations (following withdrawals) of 26 123 (52·6%) participants in the DCT group and 23 500 (47·4%) in the self-isolation group. Overall, 4694 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR (secondary cases), 2364 (10·1%) in the self-isolation group and 2330 (8·9%) in the DCT group. Adjusted attack rates (among secondary contacts) were 7·5% in the self-isolation group and 6·3% in the DCT group (difference of -1·2% [95% CI -2·3 to -0·2]; significantly lower than the non-inferiority margin of 1·9%).

interpretationDCT with 24 h exemption from self-isolation for essential activities appears to be non-inferior to self-isolation. This study, which provided evidence for the UK Government's daily lateral flow testing policy for vaccinated contacts of COVID-19 cases, indicated that daily testing with LFDs could allow individuals to reduce the risk of onward transmission while minimising the adverse effects of self-isolation. Although contacts in England are no longer required to isolate, the findings will be relevant for future policy decisions around COVID-19 or other communicable infections.

fundingUK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AdultContact TracingFamily CharacteristicsHumansIncidence

Identifiers

PMID36228640
PMCPMC9625116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.