Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Understanding the net benefit of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: An enhanced decision-curve analysis

View ORCID ProfileEmily A Kendall, Nimalan Arinaminpathy, Jilian A Sacks, Yukari C Manabe, Sabine Dittrich, Samuel G Schumacher, David W Dowdy
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.16.20248357
Emily A Kendall
1Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Emily A Kendall
  • For correspondence: ekendall@jhmi.edu
Nimalan Arinaminpathy
2Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jilian A Sacks
3MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College, London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yukari C Manabe
1Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sabine Dittrich
3MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College, London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Samuel G Schumacher
3MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College, London
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David W Dowdy
4Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Geneva
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

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.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 18, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Understanding the net benefit of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: An enhanced decision-curve analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Understanding the net benefit of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: An enhanced decision-curve analysis
Emily A Kendall, Nimalan Arinaminpathy, Jilian A Sacks, Yukari C Manabe, Sabine Dittrich, Samuel G Schumacher, David W Dowdy
medRxiv 2020.12.16.20248357; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.16.20248357
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Understanding the net benefit of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: An enhanced decision-curve analysis
Emily A Kendall, Nimalan Arinaminpathy, Jilian A Sacks, Yukari C Manabe, Sabine Dittrich, Samuel G Schumacher, David W Dowdy
medRxiv 2020.12.16.20248357; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.16.20248357

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (174)
  • Allergy and Immunology (419)
  • Anesthesia (97)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (894)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (166)
  • Dermatology (101)
  • Emergency Medicine (257)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (404)
  • Epidemiology (8744)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (403)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1845)
  • Geriatric Medicine (175)
  • Health Economics (386)
  • Health Informatics (1281)
  • Health Policy (642)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (489)
  • Hematology (206)
  • HIV/AIDS (387)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10520)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (564)
  • Medical Education (193)
  • Medical Ethics (52)
  • Nephrology (216)
  • Neurology (1744)
  • Nursing (100)
  • Nutrition (264)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (342)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (457)
  • Oncology (959)
  • Ophthalmology (279)
  • Orthopedics (107)
  • Otolaryngology (174)
  • Pain Medicine (117)
  • Palliative Medicine (41)
  • Pathology (262)
  • Pediatrics (553)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (264)
  • Primary Care Research (218)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1836)
  • Public and Global Health (3963)
  • Radiology and Imaging (649)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (340)
  • Respiratory Medicine (532)
  • Rheumatology (214)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (178)
  • Sports Medicine (165)
  • Surgery (196)
  • Toxicology (37)
  • Transplantation (105)
  • Urology (78)