Rapid antigen testing as a reactive public health response to surges in SARS-CoV-2 outbreak risk in healthcare settings

Simulating SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in the long-term care hospital setting

We simulated SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks using CTCmodeler, a previously developed stochastic, individual-based transmission model in the LTCF setting.[13,14] Using high-resolution close-proximity interaction data from a 170-bed rehabilitation hospital in northern France, this model simulates (i) detailed inter-individual contacts among patients and staff, (ii) transmission of SARS-CoV-2 along simulated contact networks, and (iii) clinical progression of COVID-19 among infected individuals. A range of COVID-19 containment measures were built into the model. These include: (i) a patient social distancing intervention (cancellation of social activities; see Supplementary figure S1), (ii) mandatory face masks among patients and staff (80% reduction in transmission rates), and (iii) partial vaccination of patients and staff (50% immunizing seroprevalence at simulation outset). Three distinct combinations of containment measures were applied to the baseline LTCF to represent variable degrees of investment in COVID-19 prevention (Figure 1A). These are presented as: (i) low-control LTCF 1, with no explicit measures in place, (ii) moderate-control LTCF 2, with patient social distancing, and (iii) high-control LTCF 3, with patient social distancing, face masks and vaccination. Further modelling details are provided in Supplementary appendix section I.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Modelling context: simulating SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in a long-term care facility (LTCF) with three different levels of COVID-19 control. (A) A list of the COVID-19 containment measures in place across low-control LTCF 1, moderate-control LTCF 2, and high-control LTCF 3 (see Supplementary appendix section I for details). (B) Daily infection prevalence, the mean number of individuals in each infection stage (colours) over time. Pre-symptomatic infection combines pre-symptomatic and pre-asymptomatic infection, and symptomatic infection combines mild symptomatic and severe symptomatic infection. (C) Daily nosocomial infection incidence, the number of new SARS-CoV-2 infections acquired within the LTCF each day. Thin coloured lines are individual simulations; the thick black line is the mean across 100 simulations. In text, the mean (range) cumulative nosocomial incidence, I, over two weeks.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Surveillance interventions were applied retrospectively to simulated SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks, illustrated here using data from outbreak simulation #22 from LTCF 1. (A) The SARS-CoV-2 transmission chain, with infections (shapes) transmitted from left to right following black lines. Of four community-onset infections (grey shapes) at simulation outset, three transmitted to other individuals in the LTCF, triggering a nosocomial outbreak. Routine RT-PCR testing was conducted upon COVID-19 symptom onset (blue four-pointed stars), with results and case isolation 24-hours later (blue crosses). A population-wide Ag-RDT screening event was conducted on day 2 (red dashed line) with immediate results and isolation (red crosses). Test sensitivity – the probability of a positive test result and subsequent isolation – is given by s adjacent to each test, as determined by infection age t at the time of each test (see Supplementary figure S4). Nosocomial infections are coloured blue if potentially averted by routine testing, red if by screening, or both if by either. (B) Corresponding surveillance results from three selected surveillance interventions evaluated over 100 stochastic surveillance runs. The multi-level testing + screening intervention always averted at least as many infections as either individual intervention in the same run, demonstrating matching of “controlled” and “uncontrolled” epidemics across interventions, and its relevance for calculation of marginal benefits of multi-level interventions.

Simulation initialization

Simulations were initialized to include a surge in SARS-CoV-2 introductions from the community. We assumed that 50% of patients and 100% of staff were exposed to contacts outside the LTCF in the week prior to simulation, conceptualized as representing family gatherings over a festive period. Calibrated to French epidemic data from January 2021, this translated to one patient and three staff infections, with a mean 1.4 symptomatic infections upon simulation initialization (Figure 1B). Detection of symptomatic infection at simulation outset was interpreted as coinciding with initial SARS-CoV-2 outbreak detection within the LTCF, triggering implementation of surveillance interventions (see below). We further assumed a low baseline rate of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 introductions from the community, again calibrated to French data and depicting a situation of ongoing localized risk. See Supplementary appendix section I for more initialization details. Outbreaks were simulated over two weeks to evaluate short-term outbreak risk and immediate health-economic benefits to surveillance interventions.

Surveillance interventions

Surveillance interventions were implemented in response to the identified surge in nosocomial outbreak risk at simulation outset. We distinguish between routine testing, the targeted use of RT-PCR upon onset of COVID-19-like symptoms or admission of new patients into the LTCF, and population screening, the mass testing of entire populations (e.g. patients, staff) on selected dates. We assessed 27 surveillance interventions grouped into four categories: (i) routine testing, (ii) 1-round screening, (iii) routine testing + 1-round screening, and (iv) routine testing + 2-round screening (see list of interventions in Supplementary table S2). The latter two categories are defined as multi-level surveillance interventions that combine both screening and testing. Based on published estimates, diagnostic sensitivities of RT-PCR s_PCR(t) and Ag-RDT s_RDT(t) were assumed to vary with time since SARS-CoV-2 exposure t.[15,16] Ag-RDT was on average 73.5% as sensitive as RT-PCR, with greater sensitivity (87.5%) up to 7-days post-symptom onset and lower sensitivity (64.1%) thereafter (see sensitivity curves in Supplementary figure S4 and further methodological detail in Supplementary appendix section III).

Simulating counterfactual scenarios

Surveillance interventions were applied retrospectively to daily outbreak data for precise estimation of intervention effects, using methods adapted from single-world counterfactual analysis (see Kaminsky et al.).[17] Counterfactual scenarios were simulated by: (i) retrospectively isolating individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (assuming immediate isolation for Ag-RDT but a 24-hour lag for RT-PCR, reflecting a delay between sample and result), and (ii) pruning transmission chains, i.e. removing all transmission events originating from isolated individuals. Single-world matching facilitated estimation of marginal benefits of multi-level surveillance interventions, i.e. additional benefits of screening relative to a baseline routine testing intervention already in place (illustrated in Figure 3). Simulation of counterfactual scenarios is described further in Supplementary appendix section III. We simulated 100 counterfactual scenarios per intervention per outbreak, across all factors resulting in a total 43.7 million simulations for estimation of surveillance efficacy, efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Efficacy of Ag-RDT screening interventions for reducing nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Points represent mean efficacy (across 10,000 simulations) for each of 26 screening interventions, arranged by timing of the screening intervention (days since initial outbreak detection, x-axis) and coloured by screening implementation (either as 1-round screening with no other testing, orange; as 1-round screening in combination with routine RT-PCR testing, purple; or as 2-round screening with routine RT-PCR testing, black). For 2-round screening, the first round was conducted on day 1, with points arranged according to the date of the second round (days 2 to 9). The solid horizontal line represents mean efficacy of routine RT-PCR testing in absence of screening, which is conducted continuously over time and does not correspond to a specific date. Relative reductions in incidence were similar across LTCFs, but there was significant variation in the number of infections averted (Supplementary figure S7). Error bars (dashed lines for routine testing) represent 95% confidence intervals estimated by bootstrap resampling. Baseline assumptions underlying simulations include: “low” community SARS-CoV-2 incidence; time-varying Ag-RDT sensitivity relative to RT-PCR (Ag-RDT A); and screening interventions that target all patients and staff in the LTCF.

Surveillance outcomes

For each outbreak simulation, cumulative nosocomial incidence I was re-calculated for each surveillance simulation after transmission chain pruning. Surveillance efficacy was reported as reduction in I, given by We calculated three measures of efficiency. First, apparent efficiency was defined as perceived operational efficiency, calculated using the per-test number of detected infections D as where n is the number of tests used.

Second, real efficiency was defined as the relative health benefit resulting from intervention, calculated using the per-test number of infections averted as For multi-level interventions combining routine testing and screening, marginal real efficiency of screening was calculated by excluding infections already averted and tests already used due to routine testing (“testing”), given by Third, cost-effectiveness was defined as total surveillance costs per case averted, accounting for unit costs c of routine testing (c_testing) and screening (c_screening), where we assumed use of RT-PCR for routine testing at a baseline €50/test, and Ag-RDT for screening at a baseline €5/test, similar to previous cost estimates for France and the UK.[18,19] Other outcomes evaluated to assess performance of testing and screening interventions were true-positive rate (TPR), true-negative rate (TNR), negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). All surveillance outcomes are reported as means across 10,000 simulations (100 outbreaks × 100 surveillance runs) and were calculated in R software v3.6.0. Confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap resampling with 100 replicates and normal approximation (R package boot).

SARS-CoV-2 outbreak risk depends on the COVID-19 prevention measures in place

Following the simulated surge in SARS-CoV-2 importations, nosocomial incidence varied across LTCFs depending on the COVID-19 containment measures in place (Figure 1, Supplementary figure S2). The low-control LTCF 1 experienced exponential epidemic growth driven by patient-dominated clusters. With patient social distancing in the moderate-control LTCF 2, epidemic growth was linear, and nosocomial incidence was reduced by a mean 62.2%, more evenly split among patients and staff. Finally, with 50% immunization, mandatory face masks and social distancing combined in the high-control LTCF 3, outbreaks tended towards extinction, with a mean 96.2% reduction in incidence relative to LTCF 1. In this latter LTCF, staff members infected in the community represented the majority of cases, and rarely transmitted. Super-spreaders drove high incidence in LTCF 1, representing a mean 5.5% of infected individuals but responsible for a mean 47.3% of nosocomial infections, versus just 0.2% of infected individuals and 1.1% of nosocomial infections in LTCF 3 (Supplementary figure S3).

Reactive Ag-RDT screening complements, but does not replace routine RT-PCR testing

Routine RT-PCR testing significantly reduced incidence of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection, by a mean 39.8% in LTCF 1, 41.2% in LTCF 2, and 46.6% in LTCF 3 (Figure 3, Supplementary figure S6). This corresponded to a mean 11.9 infections averted in LTCF 1, 4.8 in LTCF 2, and 0.51 in LTCF 3 (Supplementary figure S7). Greater relative efficacy in higher-control LTCFs was consistent with a higher average probability of positive test results, a consequence of fewer new, as-yet undetectable infections (Supplementary figure S5). On its own, 1-round Ag-RDT screening was less effective than routine testing, reducing incidence of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection by up to 31.2-37.5% (range of means across LTCFs). For 1-round Ag-RDT screening in combination with routine testing, nosocomial incidence was reduced by 58.4-63.5%. Among infections not prevented by routine testing, this represents a 30.5-32.4% reduction in remaining incidence due to screening. Whether paired with routine testing or conducted independently, 1-round Ag-RDT screening was most effective if conducted immediately upon outbreak detection (Figure 3).

Two-round Ag-RDT screening improves screening efficacy, but is time-sensitive

Two-round screening – conducting a first round of screening immediately upon outbreak detection, and an additional second round over the following days – increased overall surveillance efficacy. Nosocomial incidence was reduced by up to 69.4%-75.0% across LTCFs with well-timed 2-round screening (Figure 3). This represents a reduction of 48.1%-52.8% among remaining infections not averted by routine testing alone. Optimal timing for the second round of screening was on days 5-6 (4-5 days after the first round). In an alternative scenario of higher community incidence and more frequent introductions of SARS-CoV-2 into the LTCF, screening was overall less effective for transmission prevention than in the baseline scenario, and optimal timing for second round screening was delayed further in LTCFs 2 and 3 (Supplementary figure S8).

Screening efficacy depends on screening targets and test type

Targeting both patients and staff for screening was always more effective than only targeting one or the other (Supplementary figure S8A). Targeting only patients was substantially more effective than staff for LTCF 1, consistent with its large patient-led outbreaks. This difference was less pronounced in LTCF 2, while in LTCF 3 screening efficacy was nearly identical whether targeting patients or staff. We also evaluated use of RT-PCR instead of Ag-RDT for screening, maintaining its higher diagnostic sensitivity and longer turnaround time (24h). For all types of screening considered (1-round, 1-round with routine testing, 2-round with routine testing), Ag-RDT screening led to greater reductions in incidence than RT-PCR screening, suggesting that faster turn-around time for Ag-RDT outweighs its reduced sensitivity. This finding was robust to a sensitivity analysis considering an alternative curve for diagnostic sensitivity of Ag-RDT relative to RT-PCR (Supplementary figure S8B).

Screening efficiency and cost-effectiveness scale with underlying outbreak risk

Routine RT-PCR testing was more efficient per test than Ag-RDT screening: across LTCFs, mean apparent efficiency ranged from 28-65 infections detected/1,000 RT-PCR tests, while mean real efficiency ranged from 5-105 infections averted/1,000 RT-PCR tests (Supplementary figure S9). Relative to RT-PCR, the apparent efficiency of different Ag-RDT screening interventions was similar across LTCFs. This reflects that these interventions detected similar numbers of infections in each LTCF relative to the large number of tests used when screening. However, LTCFs varied greatly in terms of marginal real efficiency, with a well-timed patient screening intervention averting approximately 20 cases/1,000 Ag-RDT tests in LTCF 1, 5 cases/1,000 Ag-RDT tests in LTCF 2, and 0.5 cases/1,000 Ag-RDT tests in LTCF 3 (Figure 4). For two-round screening, efficiency and other measures of performance (TPV, NPV, PPV, NPV) varied substantially over time, depending on which populations were included for screening (Supplementary figure S10).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Efficiency of 2-round Ag-RDT screening in the context of a highly effective surveillance intervention (routine RT-PCR + 2-round Ag-RDT screening on days 1 and 5), comparing (A) apparent screening efficiency with (B) marginal real screening efficiency. Marginal real screening efficiency describes efficiency of Ag-RDT screening for prevention of remaining nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections not already averted by routine RT-PCR testing. Screening interventions targeted either all members of staff (blue), all patients (red), or all individuals in the LTCF (orange). Baseline assumptions underlying simulations include: “low” community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and time-varying Ag-RDT sensitivity relative to RT-PCR (Ag-RDT A).

Cost-effectiveness of different surveillance interventions varied by orders of magnitude across LTCFs (Figure 5). In LTCF 1, assuming baseline costs of €50/RT-PCR test and €5/Ag-RDT test, routine RT-PCR testing + 1-round Ag-RDT screening cost €422 (€413-€431)/case averted, with similar estimates for 2-round screening. In LTCF 2, the same intervention cost €1,070 (€1,051-€1,088)/case averted, and in LTCF 3 €10,263 (€9,963-€10,583)/case averted. Cost-effectiveness estimates were highly sensitive to testing unit costs. Above €50/RT-PCR test, routine testing was overall more cost-effective when coupled with Ag-RDT screening. Conversely, above €5/Ag-RDT test, routine testing was overall less cost-effective when coupled with Ag-RDT screening. Although combined testing and screening strategies were much more epidemiologically effective than screening on its own (Figure 3), they were generally less cost-effective (Figure 5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5.

Cost-effectiveness of four surveillance interventions (colours), estimated as surveillance unit costs per case averted. Cost-effectiveness was estimated while varying either (A) the unit cost per Ag-RDT test (at a fixed €50/RT-PCR test), or (B) the unit cost per RT-PCR test (at a fixed €5/Ag-RDT test). One-round screening was conducted on day 1 (strategies 2 and 11 in Supplementary table S2), and 2-round screening on days 1 and 5 (strategy 23). Baseline assumptions underlying simulations include: “low” community SARS-CoV-2 incidence; time-varying Ag-RDT sensitivity relative to RT-PCR (Ag-RDT A); and screening interventions that target all patients and staff in the LTCF.