RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Modelling the effectiveness and social costs of daily lateral flow antigen tests versus quarantine in preventing onward transmission of COVID-19 from traced contacts
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.08.06.21261725
DO 10.1101/2021.08.06.21261725
A1 Ferretti, Luca
A1 Wymant, Chris
A1 Nurtay, Anel
A1 Zhao, Lele
A1 Hinch, Robert
A1 Bonsall, David
A1 Kendall, Michelle
A1 Masel, Joanna
A1 Bell, John
A1 Hopkins, Susan
A1 Kilpatrick, A. Marm
A1 Peto, Tim
A1 Abeler-Dörner, Lucie
A1 Fraser, Christophe
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/08/2021.08.06.21261725.abstract
AB Quarantining close contacts of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 for 10 to 14 days is a key strategy in reducing transmission. However, quarantine requirements are often unpopular, with low adherence, especially when a large fraction of the population has been vaccinated. Daily contact testing (DCT), in which contacts are required to isolate only if they test positive, is an alternative to quarantine for mitigating the risk of transmission from traced contacts. In this study, we developed an integrated model of COVID-19 transmission dynamics and compared the strategies of quarantine and DCT with regard to reduction in transmission and social/economic costs (days of quarantine/self-isolation). Specifically, we compared 10-day quarantine to 7 days of self-testing using rapid lateral flow antigen tests, starting 3 days after exposure to a case. We modelled both incomplete adherence to quarantine and incomplete adherence to DCT. We found that DCT reduces transmission from contacts with similar effectiveness, at much lower social/economic costs, especially for highly vaccinated populations. The findings were robust across a spectrum of scenarios with varying assumptions on the speed of contact tracing, sensitivity of lateral flow antigen tests, adherence to quarantine and uptake of testing. Daily tests would also allow rapid initiation of a new round of tracing from infected contacts.Competing Interest StatementJB advised the UK government on the validation program for LFA tests. JM consults for WeHealth Solutions PBC, who distribute exposure notification solutions to Arizona and Bermuda.Funding StatementThis work was funded by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to CF, and by research grant funding from the UK Department of Health and Social Care.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 or ethics approval were necessary for this work.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.YesAll the data used in this research is publicly available.