The impact of repeated rapid test strategies on the effectiveness of at-home antiviral treatments for SARS-CoV-2

  1. Tigist F. Menkir
  2. Christl A. Donnelly

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Regular rapid testing can provide twofold benefilts: identifying infectious individuals and providing positive tests sufficiently early during infection that treatment with antivirals can effectively inhibit development of severe disease. Here, we provide a quantitative illustration of the extent of nirmatrelvir-associated treatment benefits that are accrued among high-risk populations when rapid tests are administered at various intervals. Strategies for which tests are administered more frequently are associated with greater reductions in the risk of hospitalization, with weighted risk ratios for testing every other day to once every 2 weeks ranging from 0.17 (95% CI: 0.11–0.28) to 0.77 (95% CI: 0.69–0.83) and correspondingly, higher proportions of the infected population benefiting from treatment, ranging from 0.26 (95% CI: 0.18–0.34) to 0.92 (95% CI: 0.80–0.98), respectively. Importantly, reduced treatment delays, coupled with increased test and treatment coverage, have a critical influence on average treatment benefits, confirming the significance of access.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41467-022-32640-2
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.01.18.22269408v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.18.22269408: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    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.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2022.01.18.22269408v1 on medRxiv