Abstract
Rapid antigen (RA) tests are being increasingly employed for detection of COVID-19 infections in implementations of quarantine and surveillance. We conducted a comparative analysis of quarantine durations, testing frequencies, and false-positive rates for all of the 18 RA tests for which emergency use authorization (EUA) has been given by the FDA and a nasopharyngeal RT-PCR test. For each test, we employed a mathematical model of imminent infections to calculate the effective reproductive number in the context of the test used for quarantine or serial testing strategy. We informed the model with data on test specificity and temporal diagnostic sensitivity, convolved with a data-driven profile of COVID-19 infectiousness across the disease time course. Our results demonstrate that the relative effectiveness of RA and RT-PCR tests in reducing post-quarantine transmission depends on the duration of quarantine and the turnaround time of testing results. When quarantines are shorter than five days, our results suggest that an RA test on entry to and on exit from quarantine would reduce onward transmission more than a single RT-PCR test conducted upon exit. Conducting surveillance via serial RT-PCR testing with a 24-h turnaround time, the testing frequency paired with isolation of positives that is required to suppress the effective reproduction number (RE) below one was found to require a minimum frequency of every six days. RA tests reduce RE below one when conducted at a minimum frequency that ranges from every six days to every eight days—depending on the type of RA test—with a median of seven days. Our analysis also highlights that the risk of onward transmission during serial testing increases with the delay in obtaining the results. False-positives were found to be more frequent with RA tests, an issue that could be mitigated with clinical and RT-PCR follow-up. Accounting for the specific diagnostic traits of RA tests, they are an important component of the tool set for policy decision-making, and can serve as a viable alternative to RT-PCR in efforts to control the spread of disease.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Notsew Orm Sands Foundation BHP and British Petroleum. SMM acknowledges the support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [OV4-170643, COVID-19 Rapid Research] and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Emerging Infectious Disease Modelling, MfPH grant.
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:
The use of the onshore and offshore testing data of the oil platform employees was approved by the Human Participants Review Sub-Committee, York University's Ethics Review Board (Certificate Number: 2021-003).
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
Footnotes
Author names have been updated.
Data Availability
All data is referenced and provided within the main text or supplementary material.
