Abstract
Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can diagnose COVID-19 rapidly and at low cost, but their lower sensitivity than nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) has limited clinical adoption.
Methods We compared Ag-RDT, NAAT, and clinical judgment alone for diagnosing symptomatic COVID-19. We considered an outpatient setting (10% COVID-19 prevalence among the patients tested, 3-day NAAT turnaround) and a hospital setting (40% prevalence, 24-hour NAAT turnaround). We simulated transmission from cases and contacts and relationships between time, viral burden, transmission, and case detection. We compared diagnostic approaches using a measure of net benefit that incorporated both clinical and public health benefits and harms of intervention.
Results In the outpatient setting, we estimated that using Ag-RDT instead of NAAT to test 200 individuals could have a net benefit equivalent to preventing all symptomatic transmission from one person with COVID-19 (one “transmission-equivalent”). In the hospital setting, net benefit analysis favored NAAT, and testing 25 patients with NAAT instead of Ag-RDT achieved one “transmission-equivalent” of incremental benefit. In both settings, Ag-RDT was preferred to NAAT if NAAT turnaround time exceeded two days. Both Ag-RDT and NAAT provided greater net benefit than management based on clinical judgment alone, unless intervention carried minimal harm and was provided equally regardless of diagnostic approach.
Conclusions For diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19, the speed of diagnosis with Ag-RDT is likely to outweigh its lower accuracy compared to NAAT wherever NAAT turnaround times are two days or longer. This advantage may be even greater if Ag-RDTs are also less expensive.
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
Footnotes
Minor changes to net benefit model. Extensive changes to presentation of methods (with some mathematical details moved to supplement) and results.
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.
