• A David Paltiel, Amy Zheng, and Paul E Sax.
• Public Health Modeling Unit, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut (A.D.P.).
• Ann. Intern. Med. 2021 Jun 1; 174 (6): 803-810.

BackgroundThe value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood.ObjectiveTo define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiologic, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based antigen testing.DesignA simple compartmental epidemic model that estimated viral transmission, portrayed disease progression, and forecast resource use, with and without testing.Data SourcesParameter values and ranges as informed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance and published literature.Target PopulationU.S. population.Time Horizon60 days.PerspectiveSocietal; costs included testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays.InterventionHome-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing.Outcome MeasuresCumulative infections and deaths, number of persons isolated and hospitalized, and total costs.Results Of Base Case AnalysisWithout a testing intervention, the model anticipates 11.6 million infections, 119 000 deaths, and $10.1 billion in costs ($6.5 billion in inpatient care and $3.5 billion in lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing would avert 2.8 million infections and 15 700 deaths, increasing costs by $22.3 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.5 billion) and workdays lost ($14.0 billion), yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $7890 per infection averted and $1 430 000 per death averted.Results Of Sensitivity AnalysisOutcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios, with large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations. Costs per death averted are roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5 to $17 million).LimitationsAnalysis was restricted to at-home testing. There are uncertainties concerning test performance.ConclusionHigh-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 with an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy.Primary Funding SourceNational Institutes of Health.

27 keywords...

hide…