Saskia Ricks1, Emily A Kendall2, David W Dowdy3, Jilian A Sacks4, Samuel G Schumacher4, Nimalan Arinaminpathy5. 1. MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK. saskia.ricks12@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Testing plays a critical role in treatment and prevention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to nucleic acid tests (NATs), antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can be more accessible, but typically have lower sensitivity and specificity. By quantifying these trade-offs, we aimed to inform decisions about when an Ag-RDT would offer greater public health value than reliance on NAT. METHODS: Following an expert consultation, we selected two use cases for analysis: rapid identification of people with COVID-19 amongst patients admitted with respiratory symptoms in a 'hospital' setting and early identification and isolation of people with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 in a 'community' setting. Using decision analysis, we evaluated the health system cost and health impact (deaths averted and infectious days isolated) of an Ag-RDT-led strategy, compared to a strategy based on NAT and clinical judgement. We adopted a broad range of values for 'contextual' parameters relevant to a range of settings, including the availability of NAT and the performance of clinical judgement. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis to all of these parameters. RESULTS: In a hospital setting, an Ag-RDT-led strategy would avert more deaths than a NAT-based strategy, and at lower cost per death averted, when the sensitivity of clinical judgement is less than 90%, and when NAT results are available in time to inform clinical decision-making for less than 85% of patients. The use of an Ag-RDT is robustly supported in community settings, where it would avert more transmission at lower cost than relying on NAT alone, under a wide range of assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their imperfect sensitivity and specificity, Ag-RDTs have the potential to be simultaneously more impactful, and have a lower cost per death and infectious person-days averted, than current approaches to COVID-19 diagnostic testing.
BACKGROUND: Testing plays a critical role in treatment and prevention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to nucleic acid tests (NATs), antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can be more accessible, but typically have lower sensitivity and specificity. By quantifying these trade-offs, we aimed to inform decisions about when an Ag-RDT would offer greater public health value than reliance on NAT. METHODS: Following an expert consultation, we selected two use cases for analysis: rapid identification of people with COVID-19 amongst patients admitted with respiratory symptoms in a 'hospital' setting and early identification and isolation of people with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 in a 'community' setting. Using decision analysis, we evaluated the health system cost and health impact (deaths averted and infectious days isolated) of an Ag-RDT-led strategy, compared to a strategy based on NAT and clinical judgement. We adopted a broad range of values for 'contextual' parameters relevant to a range of settings, including the availability of NAT and the performance of clinical judgement. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis to all of these parameters. RESULTS: In a hospital setting, an Ag-RDT-led strategy would avert more deaths than a NAT-based strategy, and at lower cost per death averted, when the sensitivity of clinical judgement is less than 90%, and when NAT results are available in time to inform clinical decision-making for less than 85% of patients. The use of an Ag-RDT is robustly supported in community settings, where it would avert more transmission at lower cost than relying on NAT alone, under a wide range of assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their imperfect sensitivity and specificity, Ag-RDTs have the potential to be simultaneously more impactful, and have a lower cost per death and infectious person-days averted, than current approaches to COVID-19 diagnostic testing.
Authors: Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez; Diana Buitrago-Garcia; Daniel Simancas-Racines; Paula Zambrano-Achig; Rosa Del Campo; Agustin Ciapponi; Omar Sued; Laura Martinez-García; Anne W Rutjes; Nicola Low; Patrick M Bossuyt; Jose A Perez-Molina; Javier Zamora Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jerome R Lechien; Carlos M Chiesa-Estomba; Sammy Place; Yves Van Laethem; Pierre Cabaraux; Quentin Mat; Kathy Huet; Jan Plzak; Mihaela Horoi; Stéphane Hans; Maria Rosaria Barillari; Giovanni Cammaroto; Nicolas Fakhry; Delphine Martiny; Tareck Ayad; Lionel Jouffe; Claire Hopkins; Sven Saussez Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 13.068
Authors: Yinxiaohe Sun; Vanessa Koh; Kalisvar Marimuthu; Oon Tek Ng; Barnaby Young; Shawn Vasoo; Monica Chan; Vernon J M Lee; Partha P De; Timothy Barkham; Raymond T P Lin; Alex R Cook; Yee Sin Leo Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Carly Herbert; John Broach; William Heetderks; Felicia Qashu; Laura Gibson; Caitlin Pretz; Kelsey Woods; Vik Kheterpal; Thejas Suvarna; Christopher Nowak; Peter Lazar; Didem Ayturk; Bruce Barton; Chad Achenbach; Robert Murphy; David McManus; Apurv Soni Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-10-18
Authors: Lukas E Brümmer; Stephan Katzenschlager; Mary Gaeddert; Christian Erdmann; Stephani Schmitz; Marc Bota; Maurizio Grilli; Jan Larmann; Markus A Weigand; Nira R Pollock; Aurélien Macé; Sergio Carmona; Stefano Ongarello; Jilian A Sacks; Claudia M Denkinger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 11.069