Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies to contain school-associated transmission: model-based analysis of impact and cost of diagnostic testing, screening, and surveillance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In March 2021, the Biden administration allocated $10 billion for COVID-19 testing in schools. We evaluate the costs and benefits of testing strategies to reduce the infection risks of full-time in-person K-8 education at different levels of community incidence.

Methods

We used an agent-based network model to simulate transmission in elementary and middle school communities, parameterized to a US school structure and assuming dominance of the delta COVID-19 variant. We assess the value of different strategies for testing students and faculty/staff, including expanded diagnostic testing ("test to stay" policies that take the place of isolation for symptomatic students or quarantine for exposed classrooms); screening (routinely testing asymptomatic individuals to identify infections and contain transmission); and surveillance (testing a random sample of students to signaling undetected transmission and trigger additional investigation or interventions).

Main outcome measures

We project 30-day cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection; proportion of cases detected; proportion of planned and unplanned days out of school; and the cost of testing programs and of childcare costs associated with different strategies. For screening policies, we further estimate cost per SARS-CoV-2 infection averted in students and staff, and for surveillance, probability of correctly or falsely triggering an outbreak response at different incidence and attack rates.

Results

Accounting for programmatic and childcare costs, "test to stay" policies achieve similar model-projected transmission to quarantine policies, with reduced overall costs. Weekly universal screening prevents approximately 50% of in-school transmission, with a lower projected societal cost than hybrid or remote schooling. The cost per infection averted in students and staff by weekly screening is lower for older students and schools with higher mitigation and declines as community transmission rises. In settings where local student incidence is unknown or rapidly changing, surveillance may trigger detection of moderate-to-large in-school outbreaks with fewer resources compared to screening.

Conclusions

"Test to stay" policies and/or screening tests can facilitate consistent in-person school attendance with low transmission risk across a range of community incidence. Surveillance may be a useful reduced-cost option for detecting outbreaks and identifying school environments that may benefit from increased mitigation.

SUBMITTER: Bilinski A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8366814 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundYaws is a non-venereal treponemal infection caused by Treponema pallidum subspecies pertenue. The disease is targeted by WHO for eradication by 2020. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are envisaged for confirmation of clinical cases during treatment campaigns and for certification of the interruption of transmission. Yaws testing requires both treponemal (trep) and non-treponemal (non-trep) assays for diagnosis of current infection. We evaluate a sequential testing strategy (using a treponemal RDT before a trep/non-trep RDT) in terms of cost and cost-effectiveness, relative to a single-assay combined testing strategy (using the trep/non-trep RDT alone), for two use cases: individual diagnosis and community surveillance.MethodsWe use cohort decision analysis to examine the diagnostic and cost outcomes. We estimate cost and cost-effectiveness of the alternative testing strategies at different levels of prevalence of past/current infection and current infection under each use case. We take the perspective of the global yaws eradication programme. We calculate the total number of correct diagnoses for each strategy over a range of plausible prevalences. We employ probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to account for uncertainty and report 95% intervals.ResultsAt current prices of the treponemal and trep/non-trep RDTs, the sequential strategy is cost-saving for individual diagnosis at prevalence of past/current infection less than 85% (81-90); it is cost-saving for surveillance at less than 100%. The threshold price of the trep/non-trep RDT (below which the sequential strategy would no longer be cost-saving) is US$ 1.08 (1.02-1.14) for individual diagnosis at high prevalence of past/current infection (51%) and US$ 0.54 (0.52-0.56) for community surveillance at low prevalence (15%).DiscussionWe find that the sequential strategy is cost-saving for both diagnosis and surveillance in most relevant settings. In the absence of evidence assessing relative performance (sensitivity and specificity), cost-effectiveness is uncertain. However, the conditions under which the combined test only strategy might be more cost-effective than the sequential strategy are limited. A cheaper trep/non-trep RDT is needed, costing no more than US$ 0.50-1.00, depending on the use case. Our results will help enhance the cost-effectiveness of yaws programmes in the 13 countries known to be currently endemic. It will also inform efforts in the much larger group of 71 countries with a history of yaws, many of which will have to undertake surveillance to confirm the interruption of transmission.

Project description:BackgroundTo mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, countries worldwide have enacted unprecedented movement restrictions, physical distancing measures, and face mask requirements. Until safe and efficacious vaccines or antiviral drugs become widely available, viral testing remains the primary mitigation measure for rapid identification and isolation of infected individuals. We aimed to assess the economic trade-offs of expanding and accelerating testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) across the USA in different transmission scenarios.MethodsWe used a multiscale model that incorporates SARS-CoV-2 transmission at the population level and daily viral load dynamics at the individual level to assess eight surveillance testing strategies that varied by testing frequency (from daily to monthly testing) and isolation period (1 or 2 weeks), compared with the status-quo strategy of symptom-based testing and isolation. For each testing strategy, we first estimated the costs (incorporating costs of diagnostic testing and admissions to hospital, and salary lost while in isolation) and years of life lost (YLLs) prevented under rapid and low transmission scenarios. We then assessed the testing strategies across a range of scenarios, each defined by effective reproduction number (Re), willingness to pay per YLL averted, and cost of a test, to estimate the probability that a particular strategy had the greatest net benefit. Additionally, for a range of transmission scenarios (Re from 1·1 to 3), we estimated a threshold test price at which the status-quo strategy outperforms all testing strategies considered.FindingsOur modelling showed that daily testing combined with a 2-week isolation period was the most costly strategy considered, reflecting increased costs with greater test frequency and length of isolation period. Assuming a societal willingness to pay of US$100 000 per YLL averted and a price of $5 per test, the strategy most likely to be cost-effective under a rapid transmission scenario (Re of 2·2) is weekly testing followed by a 2-week isolation period subsequent to a positive test result. Under low transmission scenarios (Re of 1·2), monthly testing of the population followed by 1-week isolation rather than 2-week isolation is likely to be most cost-effective. Expanded surveillance testing is more likely to be cost-effective than the status-quo testing strategy if the price per test is less than $75 across all transmission rates considered.InterpretationExtensive expansion of SARS-CoV-2 testing programmes with more frequent and rapid tests across communities coupled with isolation of individuals with confirmed infection is essential for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, resources recouped from shortened isolation duration could be cost-effectively allocated to more frequent testing.FundingUS National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Love, Tito's.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral countries are implementing a transition to HPV testing for cervical screening in response to the introduction of HPV vaccination and evidence indicating that HPV screening is more effective than cytology. In Australia, a 2017 transition from 2-yearly conventional cytology in 18-20 to 69 years to 5-yearly primary HPV screening in 25 to 74 years will involve partial genotyping for HPV 16/18 with direct referral to colposcopy for this higher risk group. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal management of women positive for other high-risk HPV types (not 16/18) ('OHR HPV').MethodsWe used a dynamic model of HPV transmission, vaccination, natural history and cervical screening to determine the optimal management of women positive for OHR HPV. We assumed cytology triage testing was used to inform management in this group and that those with high-grade cytology would be referred to colposcopy and those with negative cytology would receive 12-month surveillance. For those with OHR HPV and low-grade cytology (considered to be a single low-grade category in Australia incorporating ASC-US and LSIL), we evaluated (1) the 20-year risk of invasive cervical cancer assuming this group are referred for 12-month follow-up vs. colposcopy, and compared this to the risk in women with low-grade cytology under the current program (i.e. an accepted benchmark risk for 12-month follow-up in Australia); (2) the population-level impact of the whole program, assuming this group are referred to 12-month surveillance vs. colposcopy; and (3) the cost-effectiveness of immediate colposcopy compared to 12-month follow-up. Evaluation was performed both for HPV-unvaccinated cohorts and cohorts offered vaccination (coverage ~72%).FindingsThe estimated 20-year risk of cervical cancer is ?1.0% at all ages if this group are referred to colposcopy vs. ?1.2% if followed-up in 12 months, both of which are lower than the ?2.6% benchmark risk in women with low-grade cytology in the current program (who are returned for 12-month follow-up). At the population level, immediate colposcopy referral provides an incremental 1-3% reduction in cervical cancer incidence and mortality compared with 12-month follow-up, but this is in the context of a predicted 24-36% reduction associated with the new HPV screening program compared to the current cytology-based program. Furthermore, immediate colposcopy substantially increases the predicted number of colposcopies, with >650 additional colposcopies required to avert each additional case of cervical cancer compared to 12-month follow-up. Compared to 12-month follow-up, immediate colposcopy has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of A$104,600/LYS (95%CrI:A$100,100-109,100) in unvaccinated women and A$117,100/LYS (95%CrI:A$112,300-122,000) in cohorts offered vaccination [Indicative willingness-to-pay threshold: A$50,000/LYS].ConclusionsIn primary HPV screening programs, partial genotyping for HPV16/18 or high-grade triage cytology in OHR HPV positive women can be used to refer the highest risk group to colposcopy, but 12-month follow-up for women with OHR HPV and low-grade cytology is associated with a low risk of developing cervical cancer. Direct referral to colposcopy for this group would be associated with a substantial increase in colposcopy referrals and the associated harms, and is also cost-ineffective; thus, 12-month surveillance for women with OHR HPV and low-grade cytology provides the best balance between benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundMost universities that re-open in the United States (US) for in-person instruction have implemented the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) guidelines. The value of additional interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We calculated the cost-effectiveness and cases averted of each intervention in combination with implementing the CDC guidelines.MethodsWe built a decision-analytic model to examine the cost-effectiveness of interventions to re-open universities. The interventions included implementing the CDC guidelines alone and in combination with 1) a symptom-checking mobile application, 2) university-provided standardized, high filtration masks, 3) thermal cameras for temperature screening, 4) one-time entry ('gateway') polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, and 5) weekly PCR testing. We also modeled a package of interventions ('package intervention') that combines the CDC guidelines with using the symptom-checking mobile application, standardized masks, gateway PCR testing, and weekly PCR testing. The direct and indirect costs were calculated in 2020 US dollars. We also provided an online interface that allows the user to change model parameters.ResultsAll interventions averted cases of COVID-19. When the prevalence of actively infectious cases reached 0.1%, providing standardized, high filtration masks saved money and improved health relative to implementing the CDC guidelines alone and in combination with using the symptom-checking mobile application, thermal cameras, and gateway testing. Compared with standardized masks, weekly PCR testing cost $9.27 million (95% Credible Interval [CrI]: cost-saving-$77.36 million)/QALY gained. Compared with weekly PCR testing, the 'package' intervention cost $137,877 (95% CrI: $3,108-$19.11 million)/QALY gained. At both a prevalence of 1% and 2%, the 'package' intervention saved money and improved health compared to all the other interventions.ConclusionsAll interventions were effective at averting infection from COVID-19. However, when the prevalence of actively infectious cases in the community was low, only standardized, high filtration masks clearly provided value.

Project description:BackgroundThe reopening of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about widespread infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in educational settings. In June 2020, Public Health England (PHE) initiated prospective national surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in primary schools across England (sKIDs). We used this opportunity to assess the feasibility and agreeability of large-scale surveillance and testing for SARS-CoV-2 infections in school among staff, parents and students.MethodsStaff and students in 131 primary schools were asked to complete a questionnaire at recruitment and provide weekly nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing (n = 86) or swabs with blood samples for antibody testing (n = 45) at the beginning and end the summer half-term. In six blood sampling schools, students were asked to complete a pictorial questionnaire before and after their investigations.ResultsIn total, 135 children aged 4-7 years (n = 40) or 8-11 years (n = 95) completed the pictorial questionnaire fully or partially. Prior to sampling, oral fluid sampling was the most acceptable test (107/132, 81%) followed by throat swabs (80/134, 59%), nose swabs (77/132, 58%), and blood tests (48/130, 37%). Younger students were more nervous about all tests than older students but, after completing their tests, most children reported a "better than expected" experience with all the investigations. Students were more likely to agree to additional testing for nose swabs (93/113, 82%) and oral fluid (93/114, 82%), followed by throat swabs (85/113, 75%) and blood tests (72/108, 67%). Parents (n = 3,994) and staff (n = 2,580) selected a preference for weekly testing with nose swabs, throat swabs or oral fluid sampling, although staff were more flexible about testing frequency.ConclusionsPrimary school staff and parents were supportive of regular tests for SARS-CoV-2 and selected a preference for weekly testing. Children preferred nose swabs and oral fluids over throat swabs or blood sampling.

Project description:Routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 is rare for institutes of higher education due to prohibitive costs and supply chain delays. During spring 2021, we routinely tested all residential students 1 to 2 times per week using pooled, RNA-extraction-free, reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) testing of saliva at a cost of $0.43/sample with same-day results. The limit of detection was 500 copies/ml on individual samples, and analysis indicates 1,000 and 2,500 copies/ml in pools of 5 and 10, respectively, which is orders of magnitude more sensitive than rapid antigen tests. Importantly, saliva testing flagged 83% of semester positives (43,884 tests administered) and was 95.6% concordant with nasopharyngeal diagnostic results (69.0% concordant on the first test when the nucleocapsid gene (N1) cycle threshold (CT) value was >30). Moreover, testing reduced weekly cases by 59.9% in the spring despite far looser restrictions, allowing for more normalcy while eliminating outbreaks. We also coupled our testing with a survey to clarify symptoms and transmissibility among college-age students. While only 8.5% remained asymptomatic throughout, symptoms were disparate and often cold-like (e.g., only 37.3% developed a fever), highlighting the difficulty with relying on symptom monitoring among this demographic. Based on reported symptom progression, we estimate that we removed 348 days of infectious individuals by routine testing. Interestingly, viral load (CT value) at the time of testing did not affect transmissibility (R2 = 0.0085), though those experiencing noticeable symptoms at the time of testing were more likely to spread the virus to close contacts (31.6% versus 14.3%). Together, our findings support routine testing for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Implementation of cost- and resource-efficient approaches should receive strong consideration in communities that lack herd immunity. IMPORTANCE This study highlights the utility of routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 using pooled saliva while maintaining high sensitivity of detection (under 2,500 copies/ml) and rapid turnaround of high volume (up to 930 samples in 8 h by two technicians and one quantitative PCR [qPCR] machine). This pooled approach allowed us to test all residential students 1 to 2 times per week on our college campus during the spring of 2021 and flagged 83% of our semester positives. Most students were asymptomatic or presented with symptoms mirroring common colds at the time of testing, allowing for removal of infectious individuals before they otherwise would have sought testing. To our knowledge, the total per-sample consumable cost of $0.43 is the lowest to date. With many communities still lagging in vaccination rates, routine testing that is cost-efficient highlights the capacity of the laboratory's role in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2.