RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Serological testing in addition to PCR screening for the re-opening of American colleges and universities: potential for cost-savings without compromising pandemic mitigation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.10.04.20206680
DO 10.1101/2020.10.04.20206680
A1 Youngji Jo
A1 Ruby Singh
A1 Gabriella Rao
A1 Sandro Galea
A1 Brooke Nichols
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/06/2020.10.04.20206680.abstract
AB Importance The addition of a serological testing could reduce the overall testing costs of a PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing reopening plan for colleges/universities in the United States, without compromising the efficacy of the testing plan.Objectives To determine whether a college/university reopening SARS-CoV-2 testing plan that includes serological testing can be cost-saving compared to a PCR-only testing.Design, Setting, and Participants We assessed costs of serological testing in addition to PCR testing under various scenarios of university sizes (2000, 10,000, and 40,000) and epidemic conditions (initial antibody prevalence 2.5-15%; cumulative SARS-CoV-2 incidence during the school year 5-30%) of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States. We estimated total testing costs and relative percentage of cost-savings of different screening (i.e. targeted/ universal) and testing (i.e. in-sourcing/out-sourcing) scenarios between September 2020-May 2021.Main Outcomes and Measures Testing costs of serological testing and PCR testing, Relative percentage of cost saving by including serology testing in addition to PCR testing.Results Including baseline serology testing alongside routine regular PCR testing can reduce total test volumes and related costs throughout the school year. While the total testing cost is likely much lower if regular PCR testing is insourced compared to outsourced ($5 million vs $34 million for university size 10,000), including serologic testing could achieve the up to 20% cost-savings relative to PCR testing alone. The insourcing of serological testing when PCR testing is insourced can achieve greater cost-savings under high initial antibody prevalence (>5%) and cumulative incidence throughout the school year (>10%) at medium and large sized universities. If PCR testing is outsourced, however, the inclusion of serological testing becomes always preferred in most university sizes and epidemic conditions.Conclusions and Relevance While regular PCR testing alone is the preferred strategy for containing epidemics, including serology testing may help achieve cost-savings if outbreaks are anticipated, or if baseline seropositivity is high.Question Can the addition of a serological testing reduce the overall testing costs of a PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing reopening plan for universities in the United States?Findings This costing study suggested that inclusion of serological testing in addition to outsourced PCR testing as part of a university re-opening strategy could achieve cost savings of up to 20%. The amount of savings, or additional costs, is dependent on insourcing or outsourcing of testing, epidemic conditions and university size.Meaning The relative cost-savings depend strongly on whether PCR and/or serology are being insourced or outsourced, university sizes and cumulative incidence.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding support for this study.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:Neither ethical approval nor informed consent was required for this analysis which did not involve 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.YesData consisted of model output and parameters from existing literature. Data available upon request from corresponding author.