SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for outbreak mitigation in vaccinated populations

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Abstract

Although COVID-19 vaccines are globally available, waning immunity and emerging vaccine-evasive variants of concern have hindered the international response and transition to a post-pandemic era. Testing to identify and isolate infectious individuals remains the most proactive strategy for containing an ongoing COVID-19 outbreak. We developed a stochastic, compartmentalized model to simulate the impact of using Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) assays, rapid antigen tests, and vaccinations on SARS-CoV-2 spread. We compare testing strategies across an example high-income country (the United States) and low- and middle-income country (India). We detail the optimal testing frequency and coverage in the US and India to mitigate an emerging outbreak even in a vaccinated population: overall, maximizing testing frequency is most important, but having high testing coverage remains necessary when there is sustained transmission. A resource-limited vaccination strategy still requires high-frequency testing to minimize subsequent outbreaks and is 16.50% more effective in reducing cases in India than the United States. Tailoring testing strategies to transmission settings can help effectively reduce disease burden more than if a uniform approach were employed without regard to epidemiological variability across locations.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.04.22270483: (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
    SentencesResources
    All subsequent analyses were done in Python.
    Python
    suggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)

    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: 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.