Serological testing in addition to PCR screening for the re-opening of American colleges and universities: potential for cost-savings without compromising pandemic mitigation

Abstract

Importance

The addition of a serological testing could reduce the overall testing costs of a PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing reopening plan for colleges/universities in the United States, without compromising the efficacy of the testing plan.

Objectives

To determine whether a college/university reopening SARS-CoV-2 testing plan that includes serological testing can be cost-saving compared to a PCR-only testing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We assessed costs of serological testing in addition to PCR testing under various scenarios of university sizes (2000, 10,000, and 40,000) and epidemic conditions (initial antibody prevalence 2.5-15%; cumulative SARS-CoV-2 incidence during the school year 5-30%) of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States. We estimated total testing costs and relative percentage of cost-savings of different screening (i.e. targeted/ universal) and testing (i.e. in-sourcing/out-sourcing) scenarios between September 2020-May 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Testing costs of serological testing and PCR testing, Relative percentage of cost saving by including serology testing in addition to PCR testing.

Results

Including baseline serology testing alongside routine regular PCR testing can reduce total test volumes and related costs throughout the school year. While the total testing cost is likely much lower if regular PCR testing is insourced compared to outsourced ($5 million vs $34 million for university size 10,000), including serologic testing could achieve the up to 20% cost-savings relative to PCR testing alone. The insourcing of serological testing when PCR testing is insourced can achieve greater cost-savings under high initial antibody prevalence (>5%) and cumulative incidence throughout the school year (>10%) at medium and large sized universities. If PCR testing is outsourced, however, the inclusion of serological testing becomes always preferred in most university sizes and epidemic conditions.

Conclusions and Relevance

While regular PCR testing alone is the preferred strategy for containing epidemics, including serology testing may help achieve cost-savings if outbreaks are anticipated, or if baseline seropositivity is high.

Key Points (96/100)

Question

Can the addition of a serological testing reduce the overall testing costs of a PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing reopening plan for universities in the United States?

Findings

This costing study suggested that inclusion of serological testing in addition to outsourced PCR testing as part of a university re-opening strategy could achieve cost savings of up to 20%. The amount of savings, or additional costs, is dependent on insourcing or outsourcing of testing, epidemic conditions and university size.

Meaning

The relative cost-savings depend strongly on whether PCR and/or serology are being insourced or outsourced, university sizes and cumulative incidence.

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.04.20206680: (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

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
We developed a model in Microsoft Excel to calculate the total number of PCR tests required, by university community size, for an effective testing-based campus opening strategy over a 32-week (two semesters) time horizon (September 2020-May 2021).	Microsoft Excel suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)

Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

Our study has …