Adaptive strategies for the deployment of rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling study

TL;DR

This study explores how adjusting confirmatory testing for rapid COVID-19 tests can reduce costs while maintaining effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries.

Contribution

The paper introduces dynamic testing strategies that adapt to epidemic conditions to optimize resource use for rapid diagnostic tests.

Findings

Dynamic strategies can reduce PCR tests by 35% while maintaining 92% of the impact of constant PCR confirmation.

False-positive results increase significantly under dynamic strategies, from 0.07% to 1.1% of the population.

Optimal testing strategies depend on prioritizing either cost reduction or minimizing false positives.

Abstract

Background: Lateral flow assays (LFAs) for the rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) provide an affordable, rapid and decentralised means for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Concentrating on urban areas in low- and middle-income countries, we examined whether ‘dynamic’ screening algorithms, that adjust the use of confirmatory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing based on epidemiological conditions, could reduce cost without substantially reducing the impact of testing.

Methods: Concentrating on a hypothetical ‘second wave’ of COVID-19 in India, we modelled the potential impact of testing 0.5% of the population per day at random with LFA, regardless of symptom status. We considered dynamic testing strategies where LFA positive cases are only confirmed with PCR when LFA positivity rates are below a given threshold (relative to the peak positive rate at the height of the epidemic wave), compared to confirming either all positive LFA results or confirming no results. Benefit was estimated based on cumulative incidence of infection, and resource requirements, based on the cumulative number of PCR tests used and the cumulative number of unnecessary isolations.

Results: A dynamic strategy of discontinuing PCR confirmation when LFA positivity exceeded 50% of the peak positivity rate in an unmitigated epidemic would achieve comparable impact to one employing PCR confirmation throughout (9.2% of cumulative cases averted vs 9.8%), while requiring 35% as many PCR tests. However, the dynamic testing strategy would increase the number of false-positive test results substantially, from 0.07% of the population to 1.1%.

Conclusions: Dynamic diagnostic strategies that adjust to epidemic conditions could help maximise the impact of testing at a given cost. Generally, dynamic strategies reduce the number of confirmatory PCR tests needed, but increase the number of unnecessary isolations. Optimal strategies will depend on whether greater priority is placed on limiting confirmatory testing or false-positive diagnoses.

Figures