Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation. Setting: Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings. Methods: Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee. Results: The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations: No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified. Conclusions: The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical - and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies. Future work: Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Coronavirus disease 2019 is an infectious disease that can cause death and long-term ill-health. Treatments exist that can be provided in hospital to reduce the number of deaths from coronavirus disease 2019. Treatments also exist which can be provided in the community for people at high risk of needing to be admitted to hospital to reduce the number of admissions and to reduce the number of deaths from coronavirus disease 2019. However, the value for money of these treatments has not been estimated. We took the clinical effectiveness of nine treatments from published literature sources and built a model that estimated the value for money of six treatments compared with care without these treatments. Three treatments were excluded due to confidential prices. The results of the model showed that many treatments in a hospital setting had estimates of cost-effectiveness that would normally be seen to be good value for money using the thresholds published by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. The same was true for some treatments in a community setting. However, it is also possible that these treatments are not good value for money. The benefit of the drugs and value for money is highly uncertain as studies trying to estimate the gain have been done with (1) previous variants of the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 being widespread, (2) where the proportion of people who have had vaccinations or who had previously had coronavirus disease 2019 is low and (3) where standard treatment was that when coronavirus disease 2019 was first identified, and not the drugs used now. Because of these differences, and the unknown price of some interventions, we cannot confidently say which (if any) treatments help patients the most, or which treatment represents the best value for money. Further research, in current conditions, would improve the accuracy of our answers.

Early Cost-Utility Analysis of Ataluren and Eteplirsen in the Treatment of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in Egypt.

OBJECTIVES: Ataluren and eteplirsen are orphan drugs that delay progression of Duchenne muscular dystrophy in mutation-specific subgroups. They have yet to be approved in Egypt but are expected to reach the market soon. This study describes 2 cost-utility models comparing the drugs with the standard of care. METHODS: We used a partition-survival model with 5 states based on the ambulatory status to model a cohort of ambulatory patients at the age of 5 years. Baseline curves were obtained from a published model; then the ambulation loss curve was updated using the Kaplan-Meier curve of the standard of care from a study by McDonald et al. Other curves were updated by calibration to this curve. Costs and utilities were from a local study. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Prices were estimated based on other orphan drugs' prices. RESULTS: In the base case, ataluren 1000 mg and eteplirsen 50 mg/mL resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EGP 51 745 605 and EGP 69 652 533/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively, at their hypothetical prices of EGP 308 600 for ataluren 30-sachet pack and EGP 62 800 for eteplirsen 10 mL vial. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to health state utilities but not to state costs. At EGP 911 719/quality-adjusted life-year threshold, the value-based prices were EGP 4680 for ataluren 1000 mg and EGP 733 for eteplirsen 10 mL vial. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these models, there is a huge gap between the prices of orphan drugs and their value-based prices, which highlights the need for major policy reforms in the assessment and pricing of orphan drugs.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remdesivir for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This study aims to synthesize evidence to assess the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir (RDV) for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in England and Wales. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted informed by 2 large trials and uses a partitioned survival approach to assess short- and long-term clinical consequences and costs associated with COVID-19 in a hypothetical cohort of hospitalized patients requiring supplemental oxygen at the start of treatment. Given that it is uncertain whether RDV reduces death, 2 analyses are presented, assuming RDV either reduces death or does not. Published sources were used for long-term clinical, quality of life, and cost parameters. RESULTS: Under the assumption that RDV reduces death, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RDV is estimated at £11 881 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with standard of care (SoC) (probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £12 400). The probability for RDV to be cost-effective is 74% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RDV was no longer cost-effective when the hazard ratio for overall survival compared with SoC was >0·915. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study suggest that using RDV for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is likely to represent a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources at current willingness-to-pay threshold in England and Wales, only if it prevents death. Results needs to be interpreted caution as vaccination was introduced and the SoC and evidence available have also evolved considerably since the analysis is conducted.

Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point of care tests for routine testing in residential care homes: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which at the time of writing (January 2021) was responsible for more than 2.25 million deaths worldwide and over 100,000 deaths in the UK. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in residential care homes. OBJECTIVE: The work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests in the setting of a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. PERSPECTIVE/SETTING: The perspective was that of the NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. Care homes with en suite rooms and with shared facilities were modelled separately. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was constructed to model individual residents and simulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 once it had entered the residential care facility. The numbers of COVID-19-related deaths and critical cases were recorded in addition to the number of days spent in isolation. Thirteen strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests and for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Scenario analyses modelled early release from isolation based on receipt of a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and the impact of vaccination. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness results depended on the proportion of residential care facilities penetrated by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with desirable target product profiles appear to have high net monetary benefit values. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with acceptable target product profiles had low net monetary benefit values because of unnecessary isolations. The benefit of allowing early release from isolation depended on whether or not the facility had en suite rooms. The greater the assumed efficacy of vaccination, the lower the net monetary benefit values associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, when assuming that a vaccine lowers the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. LIMITATIONS: There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. Some degree of Monte Carlo sampling error persists because of the timelines of the project. The example care home simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly the cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests have considerable potential for benefit for use in residential care facilities, but whether or not this materialises depends on the diagnostic accuracy and costs of forthcoming SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. FUTURE WORK: More accurate results would be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of and the reduction in time to test result associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests when used in the context of residential care facilities, the proportion of care home penetrated by SARS-CoV-2 and the levels of immunity once vaccination is administered. These parameters are currently uncertain. FUNDING: This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as project number 132154. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 is highly infectious, and this can cause problems in care homes, where the virus can spread quickly. Laboratory-based tests can determine whether or not someone has SARS-CoV-2, but these tests are not perfect and can take a long time to provide a result. Point-of-care tests that can be performed quickly in the care home to detect SARS-CoV-2 are being developed and they may have much shorter times to get a result than laboratory-based tests, although with worse accuracy. The benefit of quicker tests is that decisions to put residents into or release them from isolation can be made sooner, reducing the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2 and reducing time in isolation. The disadvantage of reduced accuracy is that wrong decisions could be made, resulting in either unnecessary isolation or increased spread of SARS-CoV-2. A computer model was built to explore the impact of using SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests for residents of care homes. The model estimated the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections, deaths due to COVID-19 and days in isolation. Strategies were run using different values, including the time to get a test result back, the accuracy of tests, the proportion of care homes where there is a case of SARS-CoV-2, whether residents were isolated individually or in groups and how well vaccines work. The results of the model indicated that point-of-care tests could be good if there was a large decrease in the time to get a test result back, if accuracy was high and if vaccination protection was moderate. However, the accuracy and speed of future point-of-care tests is uncertain. When newer SARS-CoV-2 tests are available, the model will allow an estimate of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tests to be made.

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. DESIGN: This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial. INTERVENTIONS: The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of -5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows - ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval -2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference -1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval -6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was -3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval -8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means -1.8, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to -0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis. CONCLUSION: The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered. FUTURE WORK: To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The eye functions like a camera. The retina, at the back of the eye, is the camera film, and the centre, the macula, allows us to see fine details. Approximately 6500 people each year in England and Wales are affected by fluid leaking out of congested tiny blood vessels, causing macular swelling or oedema. The cause is blockage of the main vein that normally drains blood from the retina. Three drugs, injected into the eye in tiny amounts every 4­8 weeks, have been shown to improve the vision of people with this condition. Two drugs, ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis^®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea^®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany), are licensed for UK use, but the third, bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin^®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland), is not, even though it is much cheaper and used extensively worldwide. To our knowledge, no trials have compared the three drugs over the typical 2-year treatment period. This multicentre, Phase III, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal therapy with ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus aflibercept (Eylea) versus bevacizumab (Avastin) for macular oedema due to central retinal Vein Occlusion (LEAVO) was designed to compare ranibizumab, aflibercept and bevacizumab in this type of macular oedema. The trial showed that all three drugs improved vision a lot, but bevacizumab improved vision to a slightly lesser degree than the other two drugs. All patients should be aware of these findings before considering their treatment options. A comparison of the costs and benefits of ranibizumab, aflibercept and bevacizumab, using data from the trial and other sources, found that all three led to similar improvements in quality of life. Because aflibercept and ranibizumab are so much more expensive, they may be poor value for money. If patients, their representatives and funders all agree, it may be possible to treat this type of macular oedema with bevacizumab, which is cheaper, keeping the other agents available if needed.

Jointly Modelling Economics and Epidemiology to Support Public Policy Decisions for the COVID-19 Response: A Review of UK Studies.

COVID-19 in the UK has had a profound impact on population health and other socially important outcomes, including on education and the economy. Although a range of evidence has guided policy, epidemiological models have been central. It is less clear whether models to support decision making have sought to integrate COVID-19 epidemiology with a consideration of broader health, wellbeing and economic implications. We report on a rapid review of studies seeking to integrate epidemiological and economic modelling to assess the impacts of alternative policies. Overall, our results suggest that few studies have explored broader impacts of different COVID-19 policies in the UK. Three studies looked only at health, capturing impacts on individuals with and without COVID-19, with various methods used to model the latter. Four models considered health and wider impacts on individuals' economic outcomes, such as wages. However, these models made no attempt to consider the dynamic impacts on economic outcomes of others and the wider economy. The most complex analyses sought to link epidemiological and dynamic economic models. Studies compared a wide range of policies, although most were defined in general terms with minimal consideration of their granular specifications. There was minimal exploration of uncertainty, with no consideration in half the studies. Selecting appropriate models to inform decisions requires careful thought of factors relevant to the decision options under consideration such as the outcomes of interest, sectors likely to be impacted and causal pathways. In summary, better linking epidemiological and economic modelling would help to inform COVID-19 policy.

Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macular Oedema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The LEAVO Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis), aflibercept (Eylea) and bevacizumab (Avastin) for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. METHODS: We calculated costs and quality-adjusted life-years from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. We performed a within-trial analysis using the efficacy, safety, resource use and health utility data from a randomised controlled trial (LEAVO) over 100 weeks. We built a discrete event simulation to model long-term outcomes. We estimated utilities using the Visual-Functioning Questionnaire-Utility Index, EQ-5D and EQ-5D with an additional vision question. We used standard UK costs sources for 2018/19 and a cost of £28 per bevacizumab injection. We discounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years at 3.5% annually. RESULTS: Bevacizumab was the least costly intervention followed by ranibizumab and aflibercept in both the within-trial analysis (bevacizumab: £6292, ranibizumab: £13,014, aflibercept: £14,328) and long-term model (bevacizumab: £18,353, ranibizumab: £30,226, aflibercept: £35,026). Although LEAVO did not demonstrate bevacizumab to be non-inferior for the visual acuity primary outcome, the three interventions generated similar quality-adjusted life-years in both analyses. Bevacizumab was always the most cost-effective intervention at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, even using the list price of £243 per injection. CONCLUSIONS: Wider adoption of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion could result in substantial savings to healthcare systems and deliver similar health-related quality of life. However, patients, funders and ophthalmologists should be fully aware that LEAVO could not demonstrate that bevacizumab is non-inferior to the licensed agents.

Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests on admission to hospital from A&E: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. At the time of writing (October 2020), the number of cases of COVID-19 had been approaching 38 million and more than 1 million deaths were attributable to it. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in hospital wards. OBJECTIVE: The work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests. A further objective was to assess occupancy levels in hospital areas, such as waiting bays, before allocation to an appropriate bay. PERSPECTIVE/SETTING: The perspective was that of the UK NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical hospital with an accident and emergency department. METHODS: An individual patient model was constructed that simulated the spread of disease and mortality within the hospital and recorded occupancy levels. Thirty-two strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests were modelled. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits, and key patient outcomes, such as death and intensive care unit care, caused directly by COVID-19 were recorded. RESULTS: A SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test with a desirable target product profile appears to have a relatively small number of infections, a low occupancy level within the waiting bays, and a high net monetary benefit. However, if hospital laboratory testing can produce results in 6 hours, then the benefits of point-of-care tests may be reduced. The acceptable target product profiles performed less well and had lower net monetary benefits than both a laboratory-based test with a 24-hour turnaround time and strategies using data from currently available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. The desirable and acceptable point-of-care test target product profiles had lower requirement for patients to be in waiting bays before being allocated to an appropriate bay than laboratory-based tests, which may be of high importance in some hospitals. Tests that appeared more cost-effective also had better patient outcomes. LIMITATIONS: There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. The example hospital simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Should a SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test with a desirable target product profile become available, this appears promising, particularly when the reduction on the requirements for waiting bays before allocation to a SARS-CoV-2-infected bay, or a non-SARS-CoV-2-infected bay, is considered. The results produced should be informative to decision-makers who can identify the results most pertinent to their specific circumstances. FUTURE WORK: More accurate results could be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of, and the reduction in time to test result associated with, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, and on the impact of these tests on occupancy of waiting bays and isolation bays. These parameters are currently uncertain. FUNDING: This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as project number 132154. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 is highly infectious, and this can cause problems in hospitals, where the virus can spread quickly. Laboratory-based tests can determine whether or not a patient has SARS-CoV-2, but these tests are not perfect and can require a considerable time to provide a result. Point-of-care tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 are being developed that may have much shorter times to a test result, although these are likely to be less accurate than laboratory-based tests. The benefit of quicker tests is that a decision to put a patient in a SARS-CoV-2-infected bay or in a non-SARS-CoV-2-infected bay can be made sooner, limiting contact between patients with SARS-CoV-2 and patients without SARS-CoV-2 and reducing the risk of infection transmission. The disadvantage of reduced accuracy is that some patients may be allocated to the wrong bay, increasing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A computer model was built to explore the impact of using SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests for people admitted to hospital. This model estimated the number of infections and deaths due to COVID-19, the costs of testing, and the number of people waiting to be put in an appropriate bay. Strategies were run using different values, including the time to get a test result, the accuracy of tests and whether or not staff who do not have symptoms should be tested. The results of the model indicated that point-of-care tests could be good if there was a large reduction in the time to get a test result and if accuracy was high. However, it is not certain whether or not such tests will become available. When newer SARS-CoV-2 tests are available, the model will allow an estimate of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the test to be made.