Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysis
Abstract Background Testing plays a critical role in treatment and prevention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to nucleic acid tests (NATs), antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can be more accessible, but typically have lower sensitivity and specificity. By quantifying the...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2021-03-01
|
Series: | BMC Medicine |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-01948-z |
id |
doaj-2eb6dc57206c4fb19a209ff79f7f859a |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-2eb6dc57206c4fb19a209ff79f7f859a2021-03-11T12:07:33ZengBMCBMC Medicine1741-70152021-03-0119111310.1186/s12916-021-01948-zQuantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysisSaskia Ricks0Emily A. Kendall1David W. Dowdy2Jilian A. Sacks3Samuel G. Schumacher4Nimalan Arinaminpathy5MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College LondonDivision of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineDepartment of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthFoundation for Innovative New DiagnosticsFoundation for Innovative New DiagnosticsMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College LondonAbstract Background Testing plays a critical role in treatment and prevention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to nucleic acid tests (NATs), antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can be more accessible, but typically have lower sensitivity and specificity. By quantifying these trade-offs, we aimed to inform decisions about when an Ag-RDT would offer greater public health value than reliance on NAT. Methods Following an expert consultation, we selected two use cases for analysis: rapid identification of people with COVID-19 amongst patients admitted with respiratory symptoms in a ‘hospital’ setting and early identification and isolation of people with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 in a ‘community’ setting. Using decision analysis, we evaluated the health system cost and health impact (deaths averted and infectious days isolated) of an Ag-RDT-led strategy, compared to a strategy based on NAT and clinical judgement. We adopted a broad range of values for ‘contextual’ parameters relevant to a range of settings, including the availability of NAT and the performance of clinical judgement. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis to all of these parameters. Results In a hospital setting, an Ag-RDT-led strategy would avert more deaths than a NAT-based strategy, and at lower cost per death averted, when the sensitivity of clinical judgement is less than 90%, and when NAT results are available in time to inform clinical decision-making for less than 85% of patients. The use of an Ag-RDT is robustly supported in community settings, where it would avert more transmission at lower cost than relying on NAT alone, under a wide range of assumptions. Conclusions Despite their imperfect sensitivity and specificity, Ag-RDTs have the potential to be simultaneously more impactful, and have a lower cost per death and infectious person-days averted, than current approaches to COVID-19 diagnostic testing.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-01948-zAntigenRapid diagnostic testsCOVID-19 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Saskia Ricks Emily A. Kendall David W. Dowdy Jilian A. Sacks Samuel G. Schumacher Nimalan Arinaminpathy |
spellingShingle |
Saskia Ricks Emily A. Kendall David W. Dowdy Jilian A. Sacks Samuel G. Schumacher Nimalan Arinaminpathy Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysis BMC Medicine Antigen Rapid diagnostic tests COVID-19 |
author_facet |
Saskia Ricks Emily A. Kendall David W. Dowdy Jilian A. Sacks Samuel G. Schumacher Nimalan Arinaminpathy |
author_sort |
Saskia Ricks |
title |
Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysis |
title_short |
Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysis |
title_full |
Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysis |
title_fullStr |
Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysis |
title_sort |
quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for covid-19: a modelling analysis |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
BMC Medicine |
issn |
1741-7015 |
publishDate |
2021-03-01 |
description |
Abstract Background Testing plays a critical role in treatment and prevention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to nucleic acid tests (NATs), antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can be more accessible, but typically have lower sensitivity and specificity. By quantifying these trade-offs, we aimed to inform decisions about when an Ag-RDT would offer greater public health value than reliance on NAT. Methods Following an expert consultation, we selected two use cases for analysis: rapid identification of people with COVID-19 amongst patients admitted with respiratory symptoms in a ‘hospital’ setting and early identification and isolation of people with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 in a ‘community’ setting. Using decision analysis, we evaluated the health system cost and health impact (deaths averted and infectious days isolated) of an Ag-RDT-led strategy, compared to a strategy based on NAT and clinical judgement. We adopted a broad range of values for ‘contextual’ parameters relevant to a range of settings, including the availability of NAT and the performance of clinical judgement. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis to all of these parameters. Results In a hospital setting, an Ag-RDT-led strategy would avert more deaths than a NAT-based strategy, and at lower cost per death averted, when the sensitivity of clinical judgement is less than 90%, and when NAT results are available in time to inform clinical decision-making for less than 85% of patients. The use of an Ag-RDT is robustly supported in community settings, where it would avert more transmission at lower cost than relying on NAT alone, under a wide range of assumptions. Conclusions Despite their imperfect sensitivity and specificity, Ag-RDTs have the potential to be simultaneously more impactful, and have a lower cost per death and infectious person-days averted, than current approaches to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. |
topic |
Antigen Rapid diagnostic tests COVID-19 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-01948-z |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT saskiaricks quantifyingthepotentialvalueofantigendetectionrapiddiagnostictestsforcovid19amodellinganalysis AT emilyakendall quantifyingthepotentialvalueofantigendetectionrapiddiagnostictestsforcovid19amodellinganalysis AT davidwdowdy quantifyingthepotentialvalueofantigendetectionrapiddiagnostictestsforcovid19amodellinganalysis AT jilianasacks quantifyingthepotentialvalueofantigendetectionrapiddiagnostictestsforcovid19amodellinganalysis AT samuelgschumacher quantifyingthepotentialvalueofantigendetectionrapiddiagnostictestsforcovid19amodellinganalysis AT nimalanarinaminpathy quantifyingthepotentialvalueofantigendetectionrapiddiagnostictestsforcovid19amodellinganalysis |
_version_ |
1724224809107193856 |