Comparison of antigen- and RT-PCR-based testing strategies for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in two high-exposure settings.
PLoS One
; 16(9): e0253407, 2021.
Article
in English
| MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398926
Preprint
This scientific journal article is probably based on a previously available preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See preprint
This scientific journal article is probably based on a previously available preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See preprint
ABSTRACT
Surveillance testing for infectious disease is an important tool to combat disease transmission at the population level. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, RT-PCR tests have been considered the gold standard due to their high sensitivity and specificity. However, RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been shown to return positive results when performed to individuals who are past the infectious stage of the disease. Meanwhile, antigen-based tests are often treated as a less accurate substitute for RT-PCR, however, new evidence suggests they may better reflect infectiousness. Consequently, the two test types may each be most optimally deployed in different settings. Here, we present an epidemiological model with surveillance testing and coordinated isolation in two congregate living settings (a nursing home and a university dormitory system) that considers test metrics with respect to viral culture, a proxy for infectiousness. Simulations show that antigen-based surveillance testing coupled with isolation greatly reduces disease burden and carries a lower economic cost than RT-PCR-based strategies. Antigen and RT-PCR tests perform different functions toward the goal of reducing infectious disease burden and should be used accordingly.
Full text:
Available
Collection:
International databases
Database:
MEDLINE
Main subject:
COVID-19 Serological Testing
/
SARS-CoV-2
/
COVID-19
/
Antigens, Viral
Type of study:
Diagnostic study
Limits:
Humans
Language:
English
Journal:
PLoS One
Journal subject:
Science
/
Medicine
Year:
2021
Document Type:
Article
Affiliation country:
Journal.pone.0253407
Similar
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS