PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Love, Jay AU - Wimmer, Megan T. AU - Toth, Damon J.A. AU - Chandran, Arthi AU - Makhija, Dilip AU - Cooper, Charles K. AU - Samore, Matthew H. AU - Keegan, Lindsay T. TI - Comparison of antigen- and RT-PCR-based testing strategies for detection of Sars-Cov-2 in two high-exposure settings AID - 10.1101/2021.06.03.21258248 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.06.03.21258248 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/06/2021.06.03.21258248.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/06/2021.06.03.21258248.full AB - Surveillance testing for infectious disease is an important tool to combat disease transmission at the population level. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, RT-PCR tests have been considered the gold standard due to their high sensitivity and specificity. However, RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to return positive results when administered to individuals who are past the infectious stage of the disease. Meanwhile, antigen-based tests are often treated as a less accurate substitute for RT-PCR, however, new evidence suggests they may better reflect infectiousness. Consequently, the two test types may each be most optimally deployed in different settings. Here, we present an epidemiological model with surveillance testing and coordinated isolation in two congregate living settings (a nursing home and a university dormitory system) that considers test metrics with respect to viral culture, a proxy for infectiousness. Simulations show that antigen-based surveillance testing coupled with isolation greatly reduces disease burden and carries a lower economic cost than RT-PCR-based strategies. Antigen and RT-PCR tests perform different functions toward the goal of reducing infectious disease burden and should be used accordingly.Competing Interest StatementMTW, AC, DM, and CKC reported being employed by Becton, Dickinson, and Company. JL, DJAT, MHS, and LK received research funding from Becton, Dickinson, and Company for this study.Funding StatementJL, DJAT, MHS, and LTK acknowledge funds provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (5U01CK000538-03). LTK acknowledges funds from the University of Utah Immunology, Inflammation, & Infectious Disease Initiative (26798 Seed Grant). Becton, Dickinson, and Company provided funding for this study.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:No IRB approval needed - modeling and simulation only.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.YesModeling study - no empirical data used