Longitudinal testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in day care centers in Hesse, Germany, during increased local incidence and with VOC Alpha as dominant variant: Results of the SAFE KiDS 2 and SAFE KiDS 3 study

  1. Barbara Schenk
  2. Sebastian Hoehl
  3. Olga Rudych
  4. Dominic Menger
  5. Samira Farmand
  6. Franziska Wrobel
  7. Emilie Kreutzer
  8. Daniela Gebert
  9. Melanie Flohr
  10. Franziska Berger
  11. Vanessa Weigel
  12. Marhild Kortenbusch
  13. Annemarie Berger
  14. Sandra Ciesek

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In the summer of 2020, we investigated the rate of inapparent shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in a representative sample of day care centers from Hesse, Germany, and found a low positivity rate during a period of low local community spread.

To investigate the influence of a high local incidence setting, we conducted the SAFE KiDS 2 study. 577 children and 334 staff members of 47 day care centers were tested for respiratory and gastrointestinal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, and three infections with SARS-CoV-2 in the infectious period were detected. We conclude that viral shedding occurred infrequently while the original “wild-type” variant was dominant.

The more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variant Alpha (B.1.1.7) became the dominant strain after SAFE KiDS 2 was concluded. The SAFE KiDS 3 study investigated the impact of the Alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2 on inapparent viral shedding in the day care setting. In this study, 756 children and 226 staff members from 46 day care centers provided self-collected saliva swabs, the so-called “Lollipop” swabs, which were tested by RT-PCR. In the four-week study period, none of the participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, demonstrating that inapparent shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in the day care setting was also rare during the dominance of the Alpha variant.

The influence of the variant of concern Delta on day care centers has yet to be studied.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.29.21259633: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Written consent was obtained.
    IRB: Ethical approval: This study protocol was approved by the ethics board of the University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study has limitations. This includes that study duration and material was not consistent in all three rounds of the study, limiting comparability of results. All samples were collected without observation by a medical professional, which may have influenced testing sensitivity. Also, since study participation was on a voluntary basis, biases may have also effected the results of the study. We only tested for inapparent shedding, but transmissions were not examined as part of the study. For the upcoming weeks of the pandemic, it can be assumed that the currently dominant virus variant Alpha will be displaced by the VOC Delta. Whether the even more infectious variant Delta 19 will influence transmission among children and thus the incidence of infection in day care centers in the future has to be investigated in further studies.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.29.21259633 on medRxiv