A David Paltiel1, Amy Zheng2, Paul E Sax3. 1. Public Health Modeling Unit, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Division of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiological, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based, antigen testing. DESIGN: A simple compartmental epidemic model estimated viral transmission, clinical history, and resource use, with and without testing. DATA SOURCES: Parameter values and ranges informed by Centers for Disease Control guidance and published literature. TARGET POPULATION: United States population. TIME HORIZON: 60 days. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. Costs include: testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays. INTERVENTION: Home-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative infections and deaths, numbers isolated and/or hospitalized, and total costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Without a testing intervention, the model anticipates 15 million infections, 125,000 deaths, and $10.4 billion in costs ($6.5 billion inpatient; $3.9 billion lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing may avert 4 million infections and 19,000 deaths, raising costs by $21.5 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.0 billion) and workdays lost ($13.9 billion), yielding incremental costs per infection (death) averted of $5,400 ($1,100,000). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Outcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios: large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations; and costs per death averted roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5-17 million). LIMITATIONS: Analysis restricted to at-home testing and limited by uncertainties about test performance. CONCLUSION: High-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 using an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy.
BACKGROUND: The value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiological, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based, antigen testing. DESIGN: A simple compartmental epidemic model estimated viral transmission, clinical history, and resource use, with and without testing. DATA SOURCES: Parameter values and ranges informed by Centers for Disease Control guidance and published literature. TARGET POPULATION: United States population. TIME HORIZON: 60 days. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. Costs include: testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays. INTERVENTION: Home-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative infections and deaths, numbers isolated and/or hospitalized, and total costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Without a testing intervention, the model anticipates 15 million infections, 125,000 deaths, and $10.4 billion in costs ($6.5 billion inpatient; $3.9 billion lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing may avert 4 million infections and 19,000 deaths, raising costs by $21.5 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.0 billion) and workdays lost ($13.9 billion), yielding incremental costs per infection (death) averted of $5,400 ($1,100,000). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Outcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios: large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations; and costs per death averted roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5-17 million). LIMITATIONS: Analysis restricted to at-home testing and limited by uncertainties about test performance. CONCLUSION: High-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 using an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy.
Authors: Tuna Toptan; Lisa Eckermann; Annika E Pfeiffer; Sebastian Hoehl; Sandra Ciesek; Christian Drosten; Victor M Corman Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2020-12-05 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Ian W Pray; Laura Ford; Devlin Cole; Christine Lee; John Paul Bigouette; Glen R Abedi; Dena Bushman; Miranda J Delahoy; Dustin Currie; Blake Cherney; Marie Kirby; Geroncio Fajardo; Motria Caudill; Kimberly Langolf; Juliana Kahrs; Patrick Kelly; Collin Pitts; Ailam Lim; Nicole Aulik; Azaibi Tamin; Jennifer L Harcourt; Krista Queen; Jing Zhang; Brett Whitaker; Hannah Browne; Magdalena Medrzycki; Patricia Shewmaker; Jennifer Folster; Bettina Bankamp; Michael D Bowen; Natalie J Thornburg; Kimberly Goffard; Brandi Limbago; Allen Bateman; Jacqueline E Tate; Douglas Gieryn; Hannah L Kirking; Ryan Westergaard; Marie Killerby Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 35.301
Authors: Genay Pilarowski; Paul Lebel; Sara Sunshine; Jamin Liu; Emily Crawford; Carina Marquez; Luis Rubio; Gabriel Chamie; Jackie Martinez; James Peng; Douglas Black; Wesley Wu; John Pak; Matthew T Laurie; Diane Jones; Steve Miller; Jon Jacobo; Susana Rojas; Susy Rojas; Robert Nakamura; Valerie Tulier-Laiwa; Maya Petersen; Diane V Havlir; Joseph DeRisi Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 5.226