Abstract
Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) offer the ability to diagnose COVID-19 rapidly and at low cost; however, lower sensitivity has limited adoption of Ag-RDT in clinical settings.
Methods We compared Ag-RDT, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), and clinical judgment alone for diagnosing COVID-19 among symptomatic patients. We investigated two scenarios: a high-prevalence hospital setting with 24-hour NAAT turnaround, and a lower-prevalence outpatient setting with 3-day NAAT turnaround. We simulated transmission from cases and contacts and relationships between time, viral burden, transmission, and case detection. We used decision curve analysis to compare diagnostic approaches, estimating the time- and infectivity-dependent benefit of each true-positive diagnosis.
Results In the primary analysis comparing Ag-RDT and NAAT, greater net benefit was achieved with Ag-RDT in the outpatient setting and with NAAT in the hospital setting. In the hospital setting, Ag-RDT becomes more beneficial if NAAT turnaround times exceed 2 days or Ag-RDT sensitivity increases to at least 95% (relative to NAAT) during acute illness. Similarly, in the outpatient setting, NAAT could be more beneficial when NAAT turnaround time remains under 2 days or patients strictly isolate while awaiting results. Clinical judgment was preferred only if clinical diagnoses generated a robust clinical and public health response and false-positive diagnoses produced minimal harm.
Conclusions For diagnosing symptomatic COVID-19, Ag-RDT may provide greater net benefit than either NAAT or clinical judgment when NAAT turnaround times are more than two days. NAAT is likely to remain optimal for hospitalized patients with prolonged symptoms prior to admission.
Competing Interest Statement
JAS, SD, and SGS declare that they are employed by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND).
Funding Statement
This work was supported by Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), through funding from the World Health Organization; and by National Institutes of Health [grant numbers NIH U54EB007958-12, U5411090366, and 3U54HL143541-02S2 to Y.C.M.). The funders had no role in study design, model development and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
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:
This modeling analysis does not constitute human subjects research and was not subject to IRB oversight.
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
Data Availability
Primary data used in this analysis is publicly available and cited in the manuscript. Model code is available from the authors upon request.
