RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Identifying Optimal COVID-19 Testing Strategies for Schools and Businesses: Balancing Testing Frequency, Individual Test Technology, and Cost
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.10.11.20211011
DO 10.1101/2020.10.11.20211011
A1 Gregory D. Lyng
A1 Natalie E. Sheils
A1 Caleb J. Kennedy
A1 Daniel Griffin
A1 Ethan M. Berke
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/12/2020.10.11.20211011.1.abstract
AB Background COVID-19 test sensitivity and specificity have been widely examined and discussed yet optimal use of these tests will depend on the goals of testing, the population or setting, and the anticipated underlying disease prevalence. We model various combinations of key variables to identify and compare a range of effective and practical surveillance strategies for schools and businesses.Methods We coupled a simulated data set incorporating actual community prevalence and test performance characteristics to a susceptible, infectious, removed (SIR) compartmental model, modeling the impact of base and tunable variables including test sensitivity, testing frequency, results lag, sample pooling, disease prevalence, externally-acquired infections, and test cost on outcomes case reduction.Results Increasing testing frequency was associated with a non-linear positive effect on cases averted over 100 days. While precise reductions in cumulative number of infections depended on community disease prevalence, testing every 3 days versus every 14 days (even with a lower sensitivity test) reduces the disease burden substantially. Pooling provided cost savings and made a high-frequency approach practical; one high-performing strategy, testing every 3 days, yielded per person per day costs as low as $1.32.Conclusions A range of practically viable testing strategies emerged for schools and businesses. Key characteristics of these strategies include high frequency testing with a moderate or high sensitivity test and minimal results delay. Sample pooling allowed for operational efficiency and cost savings with minimal loss of model performance.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding supported this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No IRB required - this was not human subjects research.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesComputational code is included in the on-line supplement. https://calculator.unitedinresearch.com/