Cost-effectiveness of antigen testing for ending COVID-19 isolation

Background: The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 led to a steep rise in transmissions. Recently, as public tolerance for isolation abated, CDC guidance on duration of at-home isolation of COVID-19 cases was shortened to five days if no symptoms, with no lab test requirement, despite more cautious approaches advocated by other federal experts. Methods: We conducted a decision tree analysis of alternative protocols for ending COVID-19 isolation, estimating net costs (direct and productivity), secondary infections, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of input uncertainty. Results: Per 100 individuals, five-day isolation had 23 predicted secondary infections and a net cost of $33,000. Symptom check on day five (CDC guidance) yielded a 23% decrease in secondary infections (to 17.8), with a net cost of $45,000. Antigen testing on day six yielded 2.9 secondary infections and $63,000 in net costs. This protocol, compared to the next best protocol of antigen testing on day five of a maximum eight-day isolation, cost an additional $1,300 per secondary infection averted. Antigen or polymerase chain reaction testing on day five were dominated (more expensive and less effective) versus antigen testing on day six. Results were qualitatively robust to uncertainty in key inputs. Conclusions: A six-day isolation with antigen testing to confirm the absence of contagious virus appears the most effective and cost-effective de-isolation protocol to shorten at-home isolation of individuals with COVID-19.


37
The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant was designated a variant of concern by the World 38 Health Organization in November 2021, as it had several mutations that are suspected to impact its 39 transmissibility and disease severity. [1,2] In late December, in the US, where vaccination coverage is 40 above 60%, [3] public health guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 41 regarding isolation of COVID-19 cases were relaxed. The recommended duration of isolation was 42 decreased from ten to five days, with no laboratory testing required to end isolation. [4] Individuals were 43 asked to evaluate their symptoms on day five to determine whether to continue isolating for the full ten 44 days. This guidance was received with skepticism [5][6][7] given the understanding that Omicron, 45 constituting 95% of COVID-19 cases in the US, [8] was potentially more transmissible than earlier variants 46 and less susceptible to vaccines. [1,2] Shortages of rapid antigen tests in the US, [7,9] economic losses associated with extended periods of isolation,[10] and the psychological effects of longer at-home 48 isolation durations [11] were suggested as possible reasonings behind the updated guidance. However, 49 fully elaborated scientific evidence supporting the decision was lacking. [12] 50 While quantitative studies on the viral kinetics and pathophysiology of the Omicron variant are 51 underway, decision makers must offer timely guidance that balances public health and economic 52 considerations in their COVID-19 isolation recommendations. Antigen testing could offer benefits over 53 using symptom status as a marker of infectivity given the high rate of asymptomatic COVID-19 54 infections. [13] We aimed to evaluate the trade-offs between costs (including lost productivity) and 55 secondary infections averted when adopting different protocols to end COVID-19 isolation in order to 56 provide an evidence-base for such decisions.

59
Model design . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted March 21, 2022 day of infection to reflect the reduced transmissibility five days after the start of isolation; the "residual calculations were made to adjust R eff for de-isolation protocols requiring longer isolation periods.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review)

139
We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess uncertainty in key 140 inputs in Table 1. Since test availability and protocol adherence was arbitrarily set as 100%, these two 141 inputs were not included in one-way and multivariate (Monte Carlo) sensitivity analyses. Instead, we . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted March 21, 2022 Results are presented in Table 2; all outcomes are given per 100 individuals. Ending isolation at day five without . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted March 21, 2022 is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

202
Base-case output is 7.14. In all three of the risk scenarios considered, antigen testing on day six remained the optimal de-217 isolation protocol (Table 3). Both the low-and medium-risk scenario results followed base-case findings: 218 symptom check at day five, antigen test on day five of eight-day isolation, and antigen test on day six 219 were all cost-effective with ICERs increasing as transmission risk decreases. The ICER for antigen testing 220 on day six was $8,050 and $1,500 per secondary infection averted in the low-and medium-risk . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted March 21, 2022

249
We compared health and cost outcomes associated with different de-isolation protocols to end 250 COVID-19 isolation for those with confirmed asymptomatic or mild COVID-19. All ICERs we calculated 251 had favorable cost-effectiveness ratios. We found that while symptom check without testing on day five 252 of isolation did reduce secondary transmissions after de-isolation by 23% compared to no testing, it still 253 led to nearly 18 secondary infections per 100 individuals and had the least favorable cost-effectiveness . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted March 21, 2022 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted March 21, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.21.22272687 doi: medRxiv preprint