Cost estimation of COVID Kavach test developed in 2020: A National Reference Laboratory initiative during early phase of Indian pandemic mitigation.

BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES: A new indigenously developed technology, coronavirus disease (COVID) Kavach, an IgG immunoglobulin-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit, was developed in 2020 by the Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Virology (ICMR-NIV), Pune, India. The primary objective of this study was to determine the total cost of development of COVID Kavach IgG ELISA and estimate the unit cost (UC) as well. METHODS: The total development cost (TDC) of COVID Kavach and its UC during the early phase of pandemic mitigation were estimated through a micro-costing approach from provider's perspective. An activity-based bottom-up costing approach was used to facilitate data collection from all resources, and analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel version 2016. The micro-costing data were utilized to interpret the breakdown of cost across all inputs and different levels of activity. RESULTS: The TDC of COVID Kavach was estimated to be JOURNAL/ijmer/04.03/02223309-202310000-00007/363FF04/v/2023-11-25T134903Z/r/image-tiff 2,884,032 (US$ 38,265). The UC of providing test results for exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was estimated to be JOURNAL/ijmer/04.03/02223309-202310000-00007/363FF04/v/2023-11-25T134903Z/r/image-tiff 300 (US$ 4) during July 2020. The capital and recurrent cost were incurred around 5-10 per cent and 90-95 per cent, respectively, in both the development and UC of COVID Kavach. The major portion of funds (70-80%) was utilized for procurement of laboratory consumables, followed by human resources (8-12%) in the development as well as for UC of COVID Kavach. INTERPRETATION CONCLUSIONS: The estimates from this study can be useful for conducting economic evaluations, which will help in deciding upon the subsidy in government health facilities. The data may be useful to set up laboratory facilities analogous to the National Reference Laboratory located at the ICMR-NIV, Pune and for allotting sufficient budget to develop such assays in government-funded laboratories.

Cost-analysis of real time RT-PCR test performed for COVID-19 diagnosis at India's national reference laboratory during the early stages of pandemic mitigation.

Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is one of the most accurate and extensively used laboratory procedures for diagnosing COVID-19. This molecular test has high diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) and is considered as the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. During COVID-19 surge in India, rRT-PCR service was encouraged and supported by the government of India through existing healthcare setup at various levels of healthcare facilities. The primary purpose of this research was to determine the per-unit cost of providing COVID-19 rRT-PCR services at the national reference laboratory at ICMR-National Institute of Virology in Pune during the early phase of COVID-19 pandemic mitigation, from the provider's perspective. The monthly cost for rRT-PCR testing as well as an estimated annual average unit cost for testing that takes account of peaks and troughs in pandemic were investigated. The time frame used to estimate unit cost was one year (July 2020-June 2021). For data collection on all resources spent during the early phase of pandemic, a conventional activity-based bottom-up costing technique was used. Capital costs were discounted and annualized over the estimated life of the item. Apportioning statistics were selected for cost heads like human resources, capital, and equipment based on time allocation, sharing of services, and utilization data. The data was also used to understand the breakdown of costs across inputs and over time and different levels of testing activity. During the initial phase of pandemic mitigation, the per unit cost of providing the COVID-19 rRT-PCR test was estimated to be ₹566 ($7.5) in the month of July 2020, where the total 56318 COVID-19 rRT-PCR tests was performed. The major proportion (87%) of funds was utilized for procuring laboratory consumables, followed by HR (10%), and it was least for stationary & allied items (0.02%). Unit cost was found to be the most sensitive to price variations in lab consumables (21.7%), followed by the number of samples tested (3.9%), salaries paid to HR (2.6%), price of equipment (0.23%), and building rental price (0.14%) in a univariate sensitivity analysis. The unit cost varies over the period of the pandemic in proportion with the prices of consumables and inversely proportional with number of tests performed. Our study would help the Government to understand the value for money they invested for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19, budget allocation, integration and decentralization of laboratory services so as to help for achieving universal health coverage.

Economic evaluation of hepatitis A vaccines by income level of the country: A systematic review.

Background & objectives: Although several reviews of economic evaluation (EE) studies on hepatitis A virus (HAV) vaccine exist, there remains a need to corroborate such data from time to time. This study aimed to systematically review the literature for reports on EE of HAV vaccination by type of population, characteristics of intervention and income level of the country. Methods: PubMed and Scopus were searched to identify relevant studies from inception up to May 2021 using topic-specific key words in various combinaiton. Full EE studies comparing HAV vaccination to no vaccine or immunoglobulin were included. The risk of bias was assessed by using the ECOBIAS checklist. Results: Among the 1984 identified studies, 43 were found eligible. Of these, 27 were from high-income countries (HICs), 15 from middle-income countries (MICs), and one from low income country. Majority of the studies used Markov model and/or decision tree (n=26). Eight studies used a dynamic model. The discount rate, perspective and time horizon varied across the studies. Universal HAV vaccination without screening was cost-effective among children (14/16, 87.5%) and adolescents (1/5, 20%) but not in adults (0/4, 0%). Analysis by the level of income found that universal HAV vaccination among children without screening was cost-effective in 81.8 per cent of the studies conducted in MICs (9/11) as compared to 66.7 per cent in HICs (4/6). About one-third of the studies conducted among children found that screening and HAV vaccination were cost-effective compared to no vaccination. Interpretation & conclusions: The finding of this review suggest that universal vaccination of children without screening was likely to be cost-effective, especially in MICs. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the methodology varied across studies. Several aspects should also be considered in transferring the EE results across jurisdictions.

Performance assessment of seven SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.

The pandemic of COVID-19 has caused enormous fatalities worldwide. Serological assays are important for detection of asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19, and sero-prevalence and vaccine efficacy studies. Here, we evaluated and compared the performance of seven commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)s for detection of anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunoglobulin G (IgG). The ELISAs were evaluated with a characterized panel of 100 serum samples from qRT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients, collected 14 days post onset disease, 100 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples and compared the results with that of neutralization assay. Results were analysed by creating the receiver operating characteristic curve of all the assays in reference to the neutralization assay. All kits, were found to be suitable for detection of IgG against SARS-CoV-2 with high accuracy. The DiaPro COVID-19 IgG ELISA showed the highest sensitivity (98%) among the kits. The assays demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in detecting the IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. However, the presence of IgG antibodies does not always correspond to neutralizing antibodies. Due to their good accuracy indices, these assays can also aid in tracing mild infections, in cohort studies and in pre-vaccine evaluations.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who fail metformin monotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and to pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) compared with other therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after metformin monotherapy failure. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study design is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Tufts Registry for eligible cost-utility studies up to June 2018, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. We conducted a systematic review and pooled the INBs of GLP1s compared with other therapies in T2DM after metformin monotherapy failure. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2017 US$. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies, stratified by level of country income; a random-effects model was used if heterogeneity was present, and a fixed-effects model if it was absent. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of 56 studies were eligible, mainly from high-income countries (HICs). The pooled INBs of GLP1s compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) (n=10), sulfonylureas (n=6), thiazolidinedione (TZD) (n=3), and insulin (n=23) from HICs were US$4012.21 (95% CI US$-571.43 to US$8595.84, I2=0%), US$3857.34 (95% CI US$-7293.93 to US$15 008.61, I2=45.9%), US$37 577.74 (95% CI US$-649.02 to US$75 804.50, I2=92.4%) and US$14 062.42 (95% CI US$8168.69 to US$19 956.15, I2=86.4%), respectively. GLP1s were statistically significantly cost-effective compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas, and TZDs. Among GLP1s, liraglutide was more cost-effective compared with lixisenatide, but not compared with exenatide, with corresponding pooled INBs of US$4555.09 (95% CI US$3992.60 to US$5117.59, I2=0) and US$728.46 (95% CI US$-1436.14 to US$2893.07, I2=0), respectively. CONCLUSION: GLP1 agonists are a cost-effective choice compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas and TZDs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018105193.

Cost Utility of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Metformin Monotherapy Failed Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and associated ailments are leading economic burdens to society. Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are recent antidiabetic medications with beneficial clinical efficacy. This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in T2DM patients who failed metformin monotherapy. METHODS: Relevant economic evaluation studies of T2DM patients were identified from PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library, and the Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis Registry until June 2018. Studies were eligible if they studied T2DM patients who failed metformin monotherapy and assessed the cost-effectiveness/utility between SGLT2 inhibitors and other treatments. Details of the study characteristics, economic model inputs, costs, and outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the biases in economic studies (ECOBIAS) checklist. The incremental net benefit was calculated with monetary units adjusting for purchasing power parity for 2017 US dollars. This was then pooled across studies stratified by the country's level of income using a random-effect model if heterogeneity was present and with a fixed-effect model otherwise. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q test and I2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies with 22 comparisons, mainly from high-income countries, were eligible. Six and 4 studies compared SGLT2 with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) and sulfonylureas, respectively. The pooled incremental net benefits (95% confidence interval) for these corresponding comparisons were $164.95 (-$534.71 to $864.61; I2 = 0%) and $3675.09 ($1656.46-$5693.71; I2 = 85.4%), respectively. These results indicate that SGLT2s were cost-effective in comparison with sulfonylureas but not DPP4i. CONCLUSION: SGLT2s were cost-effective as compared with sulfonylureas but not DPP4i. Most of the evidence was from high-income countries with few comparative drug groups, and the results might not be representative of the actual global scenario. Further studies from middle and lower economies and other comparators are still required.