Comparing the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of SARS-COV-2 Screening Strategies Using Rapid Antigen Tests in a Residential College Campus

Author(s)

Smolen H1, Johnston A1, Smolen L1, Yih Y2
1Medical Decision Modeling Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 screening strategies using rapid antigen tests in a residential college campus.

METHODS: A compartmental epidemic model was developed from published sources, primarily from Paltiel et al. JAMA Network Open 2020. In model development we identified several needed corrections to the published model which were confirmed with the lead published author. Our model was verified against all published numeric outcomes of Paltiel (2020). Our modeling study included a hypothetical cohort of 5000 students – 4990 students without SARS-CoV-2 infection and ten with undetected, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. The screening strategies that we evaluated were symptom-based screening and tests of varying frequency (i.e., every 1, 2, 3, and 7 days) and sensitivity (i.e., 40, 50, and 60%). These three levels of sensitivity were based on published values for rapid antigen tests, e.g., 35.8% for asymptomatic persons and 64.2% for symptomatic persons (Prince-Guerra et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021). Specificity was set to 98%, the test cost to $10, and reproductive number (Rt) to 2.5. Model projections were for an 80-day, abbreviated semester.

RESULTS: Within each sensitivity level (i.e., 40, 50, and 60%), screening frequency order of every 7, 3, 2, and 1 days was associated with increasing costs (range $682,000-$4,639,200) and increasing infections averted (range 1202-4797). In terms of cost-effectiveness, for sensitivity levels 40 and 50%, the 7-day screening intervals were dominated. For each sensitivity level, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, $ per infection averted) increased with increased testing frequency. In general, as the test sensitivity increased, ICERs increased, i.e., at higher sensitivities the cost to avert an infection increases as the test frequency increases.

CONCLUSION: From an effectiveness standpoint, more frequent testing is preferable. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, even for poorly sensitive tests, screening every three days is an attractive option.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2022-05, ISPOR 2022, Washington, DC, USA

Value in Health, Volume 25, Issue 6, S1 (June 2022)

Code

EPH120

Topic

Economic Evaluation, Epidemiology & Public Health, Methodological & Statistical Research

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis, Public Health

Disease

Infectious Disease (non-vaccine)

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×