ABSTRACT
Background We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model.
Methods We compared five testing strategies: 1) PCR-severe-only: PCR testing only patients with severe/critical symptoms; 2) Self-screen: PCR-severe-only plus self-assessment of COVID-19-consistent symptoms with self-isolation if positive; 3) PCR-any-symptom: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms with self-isolation if positive; 4) PCR-all: PCR-any-symptom and one-time PCR for the entire population; and, 5) PCR-all-repeat: PCR-all with monthly re-testing. We examined effective reproduction numbers (Re, 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70/100%) and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180-days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]).
Results In all scenarios, PCR-all-repeat would lead to the best clinical outcomes and PCR-severe-only would lead to the worst; at Re 0.9, PCR-all-repeat vs. PCR-severe-only resulted in a 63% reduction in infections and a 44% reduction in deaths, but required >65-fold more tests/day with 4-fold higher costs. PCR-all-repeat had an ICER <$100,000/QALY only when Re ≥1.8. At all Re values, PCR-any-symptom was cost-saving compared to other strategies.
Conclusions Testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to restricting testing to only those with symptoms severe enough to warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Universal screening would be cost-effective when paired with monthly retesting in settings where the COVID-19 pandemic is surging.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development [K08 HD094638 to AMN], the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health [T32 AI007433 to AM], and the Wellcome Trust [210479/Z/18/Z to GH]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors, and the study's findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, or other funders.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Approved by the Partners Human Research Committee under Protocol 2020P000967 All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Footnotes
MAIN POINT Screening asymptomatic people for COVID-19, when paired with self-isolation, would decrease infections and deaths. Universal screening with monthly retesting would be cost-effective at effective reproduction numbers (Re) > 1.8; at lower Re, restricting testing to those with any symptoms would be economically preferred.
Data Availability
The analysis was conducted from the data presenting in the manuscript and supplemental appendix.
