|
?:abstract
|
-
Background: Testing 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. Methods: Following 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 cost and impact (deaths averted and infectious days isolated) of an Ag-RDT-led strategy, compared to a strategy based on NAT and clinical judgment. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis to identify key parameters. Results: In 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 85%, and when NAT results are available in time to inform clinical decision-making for less than 90% 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. Conclusions: Despite their imperfect sensitivity and specificity, Ag-RDTs have the potential to be simultaneously more impactful, and cost-effective, than current approaches to COVID-19 diagnostic testing.
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}