Abstract
Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) offer the ability to diagnose COVID-19 rapidly and at low cost; however, lower sensitivity than nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) has limited adoption of Ag-RDT in clinical settings.
Methods We compared Ag-RDT, NAAT, and clinical judgment alone for diagnosing COVID-19 among symptomatic patients. We considered two scenarios: a high-prevalence hospital setting with 24-hour NAAT turnaround, and a lower-prevalence outpatient setting with 3-day NAAT turnaround. We simulated transmission from cases and contacts and relationships between time, viral burden, transmission, and case detection. We used decision curve analysis to compare the net benefit of diagnostic approaches relying on Ag-RDT versus NAAT.
Results Greater net benefit was achieved with Ag-RDT than NAAT in the outpatient setting, as long as NAAT turnaround time was longer than one day. NAAT was predicted to offer greater net benefit than Ag-RDT in the hospital setting, unless NAAT turnaround times exceeded 2 days. Findings were robust to data-consistent variation in Ag-RDT performance, empiric isolation practices, duration of symptoms, and other model parameters. Both tests provided greater benefit than management based on clinical judgment alone, unless the available interventions carried minimal harm and could be provided at full intensity to all patients in whom COVID-19 diagnosis was considered.
Conclusions Ag-RDT may provide greater net benefit than NAAT for diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient settings when NAAT turnaround times are longer than one day. NAAT is likely the optimal testing strategy for hospitalized patients, especially those with prolonged symptoms prior to admission.
Competing Interest Statement
JAS, SD, and SGS declare that they are employed by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND).
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), through funding from the World Health Organization; and by National Institutes of Health [grant numbers NIH U54EB007958-12, U5411090366, and 3U54HL143541-02S2 to Y.C.M.). The funders had no role in study design, model development and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This modeling analysis does not constitute human subjects research and was not subject to IRB oversight.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
1
Blogs/Media
Author Videos