Search for: All records

Testing provides essential information for managing infectious disease outbreaks, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic. When testing resources are scarce, an important managerial decision is who to test. This decision is compounded by the fact that potential testing subjects are heterogeneous in multiple dimensions that are important to consider, including their likelihood of being disease‐positive, and how much potential harm would be averted through testing and the subsequent interventions. To increase testing coverage, pooled testing can be utilized, but this comes at a cost of increased false‐negatives when the test is imperfect. Then, the decision problem is to partition the heterogeneous testing population into three mutually exclusive sets: those to be individually tested, those to be pool tested, and those not to be tested. Additionally, the subjects to be pool tested must be further partitioned into testing pools, potentially containing different numbers of subjects. The objectives include the minimization of harm (through detection and mitigation) or maximization of testing coverage. We develop data‐driven optimization models and algorithms to design pooled testing strategies, and show, via a COVID‐19 contact tracing case study, that the proposed testing strategies can substantially outperform the current practice used for COVID‐19 contact tracing (individually testing those contacts with symptoms). Our results demonstrate the substantial benefits of optimizing the testing design, while considering the multiple dimensions of population heterogeneity and the limited testing capacity.

 

Newborn screening (NBS) is a state-level initiative that detects life-threatening genetic disorders for which early treatment can substantially improve health outcomes. Cystic fibrosis (CF) is among the most prevalent disorders in NBS. CF can be caused by a large number of mutation variants to the CFTR gene. Most states use a multitest CF screening process that includes a genetic test (DNA). However, due to cost concerns, DNA is used only on a small subset of newborns (based on a low-cost biomarker test with low classification accuracy), and only for a small subset of CF-causing variants. To overcome the cost barriers of expanded genetic testing, we explore a novel approach, of multipanel pooled DNA testing. This approach leads not only to a novel optimization problem (variant selection for screening, variant partition into multipanels, and pool size determination for each panel), but also to novel CF NBS processes. We establish key structural properties of optimal multipanel pooled DNA designs; develop a methodology that generates a family of optimal designs at different costs; and characterize the conditions under which a 1-panel versus a multipanel design is optimal. This methodology can assist decision-makers to design a screening process, considering the cost versus accuracy trade-off. Our case study, based on published CF NBS data from the state of New York, indicates that the multipanel and pooling aspects of genetic testing work synergistically, and the proposed NBS processes have the potential to substantially improve both the efficiency and accuracy of current practices. This paper was accepted by Stefan Scholtes, healthcare management. 

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-threatening genetic disorder. Early treatment of CF-positive newborns can extend life span, improve quality of life, and reduce healthcare expenditures. As a result, newborns are screened for CF throughout the United States. Genetic testing is costly; therefore, CF screening processes start with a relatively inexpensive but not highly accurate biomarker test. Newborns with elevated biomarker levels are further screened via genetic testing for a panel of variants (types of mutations), selected from among hundreds of CF-causing variants, and newborns with mutations detected are referred for diagnostic testing, which corrects any false-positive screening results. Conversely, a false negative represents a missed CF diagnosis and delayed treatment. Therefore, an important decision is which CF-causing variants to include in the genetic testing panel so as to reduce the probability of a false negative under a testing budget that limits the number of variants in the panel. We develop novel deterministic and robust optimization models and identify key structural properties of optimal genetic testing panels. These properties lead to efficient, exact algorithms and key insights. Our case study underscores the value of our optimization-based approaches for CF newborn screening compared with current practices. Our findings have important implications for public policy. 

Limited testing capacity for COVID-19 has hampered the pandemic response. Pooling is a testing method wherein samples from specimens (e.g., swabs) from multiple subjects are combined into a pool and screened with a single test. If the pool tests positive, then new samples from the collected specimens are individually tested, while if the pool tests negative, the subjects are classified as negative for the disease. Pooling can substantially expand COVID-19 testing capacity and throughput, without requiring additional resources. We develop a mathematical model to determine the best pool size for different risk groups , based on each group’s estimated COVID-19 prevalence. Our approach takes into consideration the sensitivity and specificity of the test, and a dynamic and uncertain prevalence, and provides a robust pool size for each group. For practical relevance, we also develop a companion COVID-19 pooling design tool (through a spread sheet). To demonstrate the potential value of pooling, we study COVID-19 screening using testing data from Iceland for the period, February-28-2020 to June-14-2020, for subjects stratified into high- and low-risk groups. We implement the robust pooling strategy within a sequential framework, which updates pool sizes each week, for each risk group, based on prior week’s testing data. Robust pooling reduces the number of tests, over individual testing, by 88.5% to 90.2%, and 54.2% to 61.9%, respectively, for the low-risk and high-risk groups (based on test sensitivity values in the range [0.71, 0.98] as reported in the literature). This results in much shorter times, on average, to get the test results compared to individual testing (due to the higher testing throughput), and also allows for expanded screening to cover more individuals. Thus, robust pooling can potentially be a valuable strategy for COVID-19 screening.