IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0000293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two-test algorithms for infectious disease diagnosis: Implications for COVID-19

Author

Listed:
  • Sunil Pokharel
  • Lisa J White
  • Jilian A Sacks
  • Camille Escadafal
  • Amy Toporowski
  • Sahra Isse Mohammed
  • Solomon Chane Abera
  • Kekeletso Kao
  • Marcela De Melo Freitas
  • Sabine Dittrich

Abstract

Diagnostic assays for various infectious diseases, including COVID-19, have been challenged for their utility as standalone point-of-care diagnostic tests due to suboptimal accuracy, complexity, high cost or long turnaround times for results. It is therefore critical to optimise their use to meet the needs of users. We used a simulation approach to estimate diagnostic outcomes, number of tests required and average turnaround time of using two-test algorithms compared with singular testing; the two tests were reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and an antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). A web-based application of the model was developed to visualise and compare diagnostic outcomes for different disease prevalence and test performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity). We tested the model using hypothetical prevalence data for COVID-19, representing low- and high-prevalence contexts and performance characteristics of RT-PCR and Ag-RDTs. The two-test algorithm when RT-PCR was applied to samples negative by Ag-RDT predicted gains in sensitivity of 27% and 7%, respectively, compared with Ag-RDT and RT-PCR alone. Similarly, when RT-PCR was applied to samples positive by Ag-RDT, specificity gains of 2.9% and 1.9%, respectively, were predicted. The algorithm using Ag-RDT followed by RT-PCR as a confirmatory test for positive patients limited the requirement of RT-PCR testing resources to 16,400 and 3,034 tests when testing a population of 100,000 with an infection prevalence of 20% and 0.05%, respectively. A two-test algorithm comprising a rapid screening test followed by confirmatory laboratory testing can reduce false positive rate, produce rapid results and conserve laboratory resources, but can lead to large number of missed cases in high prevalence setting. The web application of the model can identify the best testing strategies, tailored to specific use cases and we also present some examples how it was used as part of the Access to Covid-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator Diagnostics Pillar.

Suggested Citation

  • Sunil Pokharel & Lisa J White & Jilian A Sacks & Camille Escadafal & Amy Toporowski & Sahra Isse Mohammed & Solomon Chane Abera & Kekeletso Kao & Marcela De Melo Freitas & Sabine Dittrich, 2022. "Two-test algorithms for infectious disease diagnosis: Implications for COVID-19," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(3), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0000293
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000293
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000293&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000293?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0000293. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.