4.8 Article

Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysis

Journal

BMC MEDICINE
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-01948-z

Keywords

Antigen; Rapid diagnostic tests; COVID-19

Funding

  1. Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) through the World Health Organization (WHO)
  2. Wellcome Trust [203839/A/16/Z]
  3. UK Medical Research Council (MRC) [MR/R015600/1]
  4. UK Department for International Development (DFID) [MR/R015600/1]
  5. MRC [MR/R015600/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have been found to offer greater public health value than nucleic acid tests (NATs) in COVID-19 testing, with potential for more impactful outcomes and lower cost per death and infectious person-days averted. In hospital settings, an Ag-RDT-led strategy may avert more deaths when clinical judgement sensitivity is below 90% and when NAT results are not available in time for most patients. In community settings, Ag-RDTs are robustly supported as they can prevent more transmission at a lower cost compared to relying solely on NAT.
BackgroundTesting plays a critical role in treatment and prevention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to nucleic acid tests (NATs), antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can be more accessible, but typically have lower sensitivity and specificity. By quantifying these trade-offs, we aimed to inform decisions about when an Ag-RDT would offer greater public health value than reliance on NAT.MethodsFollowing an expert consultation, we selected two use cases for analysis: rapid identification of people with COVID-19 amongst patients admitted with respiratory symptoms in a 'hospital' setting and early identification and isolation of people with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 in a 'community' setting. Using decision analysis, we evaluated the health system cost and health impact (deaths averted and infectious days isolated) of an Ag-RDT-led strategy, compared to a strategy based on NAT and clinical judgement. We adopted a broad range of values for 'contextual' parameters relevant to a range of settings, including the availability of NAT and the performance of clinical judgement. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis to all of these parameters.ResultsIn a hospital setting, an Ag-RDT-led strategy would avert more deaths than a NAT-based strategy, and at lower cost per death averted, when the sensitivity of clinical judgement is less than 90%, and when NAT results are available in time to inform clinical decision-making for less than 85% of patients. The use of an Ag-RDT is robustly supported in community settings, where it would avert more transmission at lower cost than relying on NAT alone, under a wide range of assumptions.ConclusionsDespite their imperfect sensitivity and specificity, Ag-RDTs have the potential to be simultaneously more impactful, and have a lower cost per death and infectious person-days averted, than current approaches to COVID-19 diagnostic testing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available