RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparative analyses of FDA EUA-approved rapid antigen tests and RT-PCR for COVID-19 quarantine and surveillance-based isolation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.08.23.21262499
DO 10.1101/2021.08.23.21262499
A1 Wells, Chad R.
A1 Pandey, Abhishek
A1 Moghadas, Seyed M.
A1 Singer, Burton H.
A1 Krieger, Gary
A1 Heron, Richard J.L.
A1 Turner, David E.
A1 Abshire, Justin P.
A1 Phillips, Kimberly M.
A1 Michael Donoghue, A.
A1 Galvani, Alison P.
A1 Townsend, Jeffrey P.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/10/2021.08.23.21262499.abstract
AB Background Rapid antigen (RA) tests are being increasingly employed to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections in quarantine and surveillance. Prior research has focused on RT-PCR testing, a single RA test, or generic diagnostic characteristics of RA tests in assessing testing strategies.Methods For 18 RA tests with emergency use authorization from the United States of America FDA and an RT-PCR test, we conducted a comparative analysis of the post-quarantine transmission, the effective reproduction number during serial testing, and the false-positive rates. To quantify the extent of transmission, we developed an analytical mathematical framework informed by COVID-19 infectiousness, test specificity, and temporal diagnostic sensitivity data.Results We demonstrate that the relative effectiveness of RA and RT-PCR tests in reducing post-quarantine transmission depends on the quarantine duration and the turnaround time of testing results. For quarantines of two days or shorter, conducting a RA test on exit from quarantine reduces onward transmission more than a single RT-PCR test (with a 24-h delay) conducted upon exit. Applied to a complementary approach of performing serial testing at a specified frequency paired with isolation of positives, we have shown that RA tests outperform RT-PCR with a 24-h delay. The results from our modeling framework are consistent with quarantine and serial testing data collected from a remote industry setting.Conclusions These RA test-specific results are an important component of the tool set for policy decision-making, and demonstrate that judicious selection of an appropriate RA test can supply a viable alternative to RT-PCR in efforts to control the spread of disease.Plain language summary Previous research has determined optimal timing for testing in quarantine and the utility of different frequencies of testing for disease surveillance using RT-PCR and generalized rapid antigen tests.However, these strategies can depend on the specific rapid antigen test used. By examining 18 rapid antigen tests, we demonstrate that a single rapid antigen test performs better than RT-PCR when quarantines are two days or less in duration. In the context of disease surveillance, the ability of a rapid antigen test to provide results quickly counteracts its lower sensitivity with potentially more false positives. These analytical results based on highly controlled test validation were consistent with real-world data obtained from quarantine and serial testing in an industrial setting.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was supported by the Notsew Orm Sands Foundation BHP and BP. 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 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: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).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.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).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.YesAll data is referenced and provided within the main text or supplementary material.