PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Salvatore, Phillip P.
AU  - Shah, Melisa M.
AU  - Ford, Laura
AU  - Delaney, Augustina
AU  - Hsu, Christopher H.
AU  - Tate, Jacqueline E.
AU  - Kirking, Hannah L.
TI  - Quantitative Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test and Antigen Testing Algorithms: A Decision Analysis Simulation Model
AID  - 10.1101/2021.03.15.21253608
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.03.15.21253608
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/17/2021.03.15.21253608.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/17/2021.03.15.21253608.full
AB  - Background Antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 offer advantages over nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs, such as RT-PCR), including lower cost and rapid return of results, but show reduced sensitivity. Public health organizations continue to recommend different strategies for utilizing NAATs and antigen tests in various settings. There has not yet been a quantitative comparison of the expected performance of these strategies.Methods We utilized a decision analysis approach to simulate the expected outcomes of six algorithms for implementing NAAT and antigen testing, analogous to testing strategies recommended by public health organizations. Each algorithm was simulated 50,000 times for four SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence levels ranging from 5% to 20% in a population of 100000 persons seeking testing. Primary outcomes were number of missed cases, number of false-positive diagnoses, and total test volumes. Outcome medians and 95% uncertainty ranges (URs) were reported.Results Algorithms that use NAATs to confirm all negative antigen results minimized missed cases but required high NAAT capacity: 92,200 (95% UR: 91,200-93,200) tests (in addition to 100,000 antigen tests) at 10% prevalence. Substituting repeat antigen testing in lieu of NAAT confirmation of all initial negative antigen tests resulted in 2,280 missed cases (95% UR: 1,507-3,067) at 10% prevalence. Selective use of NAATs to confirm antigen results when discordant with symptom status (e.g., symptomatic persons with negative antigen results) resulted in the most efficient use of NAATs, with 25 NAATs (95% UR: 13-57) needed to detect one additional case at 10% prevalence compared to exclusive use of antigen tests.Conclusions No single SARS-CoV-2 testing algorithm is likely to be optimal across settings with different levels of prevalence and for all programmatic priorities; each presents a trade-off between prioritized outcomes and resource constraints. This analysis provides a framework for selecting setting-specific strategies to achieve acceptable balances and trade-offs between programmatic priorities and constraints.Disclaimer The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This activity was reviewed by CDC and was conducted consistent with applicable federal law and CDC policy. See e.g., 45 C.F.R. part 46.102(l)(2), 21 C.F.R. part 56; 42 U.S.C. 241(d); 5 U.S.C. 552a; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesCode for the algorithm simulations can be found on the CDC Epidemic Prediction Initiative GitHub site (https://github.com/cdcepi).