Abstract
Devising effective mass testing strategies to control and suppress COVID-19 pandemic waves make up a complex sociotechnical challenge. It requires a trade-off between performing detection technologies in terms of specificity and sensitivity, and the availability and cost of individual tests per technology. Overcoming this trade-off requires first predicting the level of risk of exposure across the population available. Then selecting testing strategies that match resources to maximize positive case detection and optimize the number of tests and their total cost during sustained mass testing campaigns. In this article, we derive the behavior of four different mass testing strategies, grounded in guidelines and public health policies issued by the Costa Rican public healthcare system. We assume a (privacy-preserving) pre-classifier applied to patient data, Capable of partitioning suspected individuals into low-risk and high-risk groups. We consider the impact of three testing technologies, RT-qPCR, antigen-based testing and saliva-based testing (RT-LAMP). When available, we introduced a category of essential workers. Numerical simulation results confirm that strategies using only RT-qPCR tests cannot achieve sufficient stock capacity to provide efficient detection regardless of prevalence, sensitivity, or specificity. Strategies that harness the power of both pooling and RT-LAMP either maximize stock capacity or detection, efficiency, or both. Our work reveals that investing both in data quality and classification accuracy can improve the odds of achieving pandemic control and mitigation. Future work will concentrate, based on our findings, on constructing representative synthetic data through agent-based modeling and studying the properties of specific pre-classifiers under various scenarios.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding by the Vicerrectoría de Investigación at the Universidad de Costa Rica through the research grant 817-C0530-22.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://github.com/maikol-solis/code_paper_massive_testing_strategies
https://github.com/maikol-solis/code_paper_massive_testing_strategies
