ABSTRACT
Background The value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood.
Objective To define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiological, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based, antigen testing.
Design A simple compartmental epidemic model estimated viral transmission, clinical history, and resource use, with and without testing.
Data Sources Parameter values and ranges informed by Centers for Disease Control guidance and published literature.
Target Population United States population.
Time Horizon 60 days.
Perspective Societal.Costs include: testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays.
Intervention Home-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.
Outcome Measures Cumulative infections and deaths, numbers isolated and/or hospitalized, and total costs.
Results of Base-Case Analysis Without a testing intervention, the model anticipates 15 million infections, 125,000 deaths, and $10.4 billion in costs ($6.5 billion inpatient; $3.9 billion lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing may avert 4 million infections and 19,000 deaths, raising costs by $21.5 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.0 billion) and workdays lost ($13.9 billion), yielding incremental costs per infection (death) averted of $5,400 ($1,100,000).
Results of Sensitivity Analysis Outcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios: large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations; and costs per death averted roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5-17 million).
Limitations Analysis restricted to at-home testing and limited by uncertainties about test performance.
Conclusion High-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 using an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy.
Primary Funding Sources Dr. Paltiel was supported by grant R37DA015612 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Sax was supported by grant R01AI042006 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Dr. Paltiel was supported by grant R37DA015612 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sax was supported by grant R01AI042006 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The funding sources had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the study, the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
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:
Institutional Review Board of the Yale School of Medicine (protocol ID 2000028589).
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
Disclosures: None.
Data Availability
This study makes secondary use of previously published data. All sources are listed in the manuscript tables and references.
