Optimal diagnostic test allocation strategy during the COVID‐19 pandemic and beyond

  1. Jiacong Du
  2. Lauren J Beesley
  3. Seunggeun Lee
  4. Xiang Zhou
  5. Walter Dempsey
  6. Bhramar Mukherjee

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Timely diagnostic testing for active SARS‐CoV‐2 viral infections is key to controlling the spread of the virus and preventing severe disease. A central public health challenge is defining test allocation strategies with limited resources. In this paper, we provide a mathematical framework for defining an optimal strategy for allocating viral diagnostic tests. The framework accounts for imperfect test results, selective testing in certain high‐risk patient populations, practical constraints in terms of budget and/or total number of available tests, and the purpose of testing. Our method is not only useful for detecting infections, but can also be used for long‐time surveillance to detect new outbreaks. In our proposed approach, tests can be allocated across population strata defined by symptom severity and other patient characteristics, allowing the test allocation plan to prioritize higher risk patient populations. We illustrate our framework using historical data from the initial wave of the COVID‐19 outbreak in New York City. We extend our proposed method to address the challenge of allocating two different types of diagnostic tests with different costs and accuracy, for example, the RT‐PCR and the rapid antigen test (RAT), under budget constraints. We show how this latter framework can be useful to reopening of college campuses where university administrators are challenged with finite resources for community surveillance. We provide a R Shiny web application allowing users to explore test allocation strategies across a variety of pandemic scenarios. This work can serve as a useful tool for guiding public health decision‐making at a community level and adapting testing plans to different stages of an epidemic. The conceptual framework has broader relevance beyond the current COVID‐19 pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1002/sim.9238
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.09.20246629v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.09.20246629: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.09.20246629v1 on medRxiv