Preprints with The Lancet is part of SSRN´s First Look, a place where journals identify content of interest prior to publication. Authors have opted in at submission to The Lancet family of journals to post their preprints on Preprints with The Lancet. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed. For more information on this collaboration, see the comments published in The Lancet about the trial period, and our decision to make this a permanent offering, or visit The Lancet´s FAQ page, and for any feedback please contact email@example.com.
Quantifying Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Resource Requirements for SARS-CoV-2: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Testing Strategies for Five Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa
33 Pages Posted: 26 Mar 2021More...
Background: Molecular testing (PCR) is the recommended method for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). In low-resource settings (LRS), the availability and public health impact of these tests is constrained. Despite lower sensitivity, antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) could provide improved access at lower costs and quicker turnaround-time (TAT). We evaluated the optimal use of Ag-RDTs to increase testing access within TAT and reduce the cost and the number of cases missed in LRS.
Methods: We modeled estimated COVID-19 testing demand coverage based on current PCR capacity in three different epidemic phases across five African countries. We then modelled five additional testing strategies that utilized a combination of PCR and Ag-RDT. For each strategy, epidemic phase and country, we estimated the total number of correct test results expected within a 48hr-TAT, the number of positive cases missed, corresponding costs ($12/PCR, $6/Ag-RDT), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
Findings: Across all countries and phase of epidemic, there was insufficient PCR capacity to meet the calculated required testing demand. The strategy limited to current PCR capacity was not considered cost-effective. Saturating testing demand with Ag-RDT was considered robustly cost-effective in every epidemic phase ($5-$7/additional person with a correct test result within 48hr-TAT and $50-$1000/additional case missed averted)
Interpretation: Inclusion of Ag-RDT in testing strategies is cost-effective and critical in increasing timely testing access in countries with low PCR capacity.
Funding: Supported by the Government of the Netherlands in the context of the ACT-Accelerator and USAID.
Declaration of Interest: None to declare.
Keywords: antigen rapid diagnostic testing; SARS-CoV-2; PCR; turn-around time; COVID-19; costeffectiveness
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation