PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Michela Baccini AU - Alessandra Mattei AU - Emilia Rocco AU - Giulia Vannucci AU - Fabrizia Mealli TI - Evaluating COVID-19 screening strategies based on serological tests AID - 10.1101/2020.06.12.20129403 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.06.12.20129403 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/14/2020.06.12.20129403.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/14/2020.06.12.20129403.full AB - Background Facing the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic requires intensive testing on the population to early identify and isolate infected subjects. Although RT-PCR is the most reliable technique to detect ongoing infections, serological tests are frequently proposed as tools in heterogeneous screening strategies. We analyze the performance of a screening strategy proposed in Tuscany (Italy), which first uses qualitative rapid tests for antibody detection, and then RT-PCR tests on the positive subjects.Methods We simulate the number of RT-PCR tests required by the screening strategy and the undetected ongoing infections in a pseudo-population of 500’000 subjects, under different prevalence scenarios and assuming a sensitivity of the serological test ranging from 0.50 to 0.80 (specificity=0.98). A compartmental model is used to predict the number of new infections generated by the false negatives two months after the screening, under different values of the infection reproduction number.Results Assuming a sensitivity equal to 0.80 and a prevalence of 0.3%, the screening procedure would require on average 11167.6 RT-PCR tests and would produce 300 false negatives, responsible after two months of a number of contagions ranging from 526 to 1132, under the optimistic scenario of a reproduction number between 0.5 to 1. Costs and false negatives increase with the prevalence.Conclusions The analyzed screening procedure should be avoided unless the prevalence and the rate of contagion are very low. The cost and effectiveness of the screening strategies should be evaluated in the actual context of the epidemic, accounting for the fact that it may change over time.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was received for the present 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:The research is exempted from the ethics commitee approval, because it is based on simulated data.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).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.YesThe manuscript results are based on simulations.