Abstract
Background Surges in community SARS-CoV-2 incidence increase risk of importation and subsequent transmission in healthcare facilities. Antigen rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT) is widely used for population screening, but its health and economic benefits as a reactive intervention in healthcare settings are unclear.
Methods We used stochastic, individual-based modelling to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a long-term care facility with varying COVID-19 containment measures in place (social distancing, face masks, vaccination). In contrast to routine symptomatic testing using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), we evaluated the efficacy and health-economic efficiency of single or repeated population-wide Ag-RDT screening interventions implemented in response to surges in nosocomial outbreak risk.
Results Depending on the baseline containment measures in place, nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 incidence was reduced by up to 40-47% (range of means) with routine RT-PCR testing, 59-63% with the addition of a timely round of Ag-RDT screening, and 69-75% with well-timed two-round screening. For the latter, a delay of 4 to 5 days between the first and second rounds was optimal for transmission prevention. Efficacy varied depending on test sensitivity, subpopulations targeted, and SARS-CoV-2 incidence in the community. Efficiency, however, varied primarily depending on the other containment measures in place: surveillance costs for a combined strategy of routine RT-PCR testing and reactive Ag-RDT screening ranged from a mean €420-€10,260/infection averted across scenarios (default unit costs: €5/Ag-RDT test, €50/RT-PCR test).
Interpretation Reactive Ag-RDT screening complements routine RT-PCR testing, and systematic two-round screening helps overcome limited, time-varying diagnostic sensitivity. Health-economic gains scale significantly with underlying nosocomial outbreak risk.
Funding National Research Agency, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Fondation de France
Competing Interest Statement
LO reports grants from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Authors report no other conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
The work was supported directly by internal resources from the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research, the Institut Pasteur, the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, and the University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines / University of Paris-Saclay. This study received funding from the French Government and its Investissement dAvenir program, Laboratoire dExcellence Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases (Grant ANR-10-LABX-62- IBEID). DS is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Doctoral Foreign Study Award (Funding Reference Number 164263) as well as the French government through its National Research Agency project SPHINX-17-CE36-0008-01.
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 study used inter-individual contact data from the i-Bird study, which obtained all authorizations in accordance with French regulations regarding medical research and information processing. All French Institutional Review Board-equivalent agencies gave the i-Bird program official approval (Comités de protection des personnes 08061; Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des produits de santé 2008-A01284-51; Comité consultatif sur le traitement de l'information en matière de recherche 08.533; Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés reference number AT/YPA/SV/SN/GDP/AR091118, declaration number 909036). Signed consent by patients and staff was not required according to the French Ethics Committee to which the project was submitted.
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
Simulated data are available from authors upon reasonable request.
