Cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 self-testing at routine gatherings to minimize community-level infections in lower-middle income countries: A mathematical modeling study.

Places of worship serve as a venue for both mass and routine gathering around the world, and therefore are associated with risk of large-scale SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, such routine gatherings also offer an opportunity to distribute self-tests to members of the community to potentially help mitigate transmission and reduce broader community spread of SARS-CoV-2. Over the past four years, self-testing strategies have been an impactful tool for countries' response to the COVID-19 pandemic, especially early on to mitigate the spread when vaccination and treatment options were limited. We used an agent-based mathematical model to estimate the impact of various strategies of symptomatic and asymptomatic self-testing for a fixed percentage of weekly routine gatherings at places of worship on community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Brazil, Georgia, and Zambia. Testing strategies assessed included weekly and bi-weekly self-testing across varying levels of vaccine effectiveness, vaccine coverage, and reproductive numbers to simulate developing stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-testing symptomatic people attending routine gatherings can cost-effectively reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within places of worship and the community, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $69-$303 USD. This trend is especially true in contexts where population level attendance at such gatherings is high, demonstrating that a distribution approach is more impactful when a greater proportion of the population is reached. Asymptomatic self-testing of attendees at 100% of places of worship in a country results in the greatest percent of infections averted and is consistently cost-effective but remains costly. Budgetary needs for asymptomatic testing are expensive and likely unaffordable for lower-middle income countries (520-1550x greater than that of symptomatic testing alone), promoting that strategies to strengthen symptomatic testing should remain a higher priority.

Cost-consequence analysis of a combined COVID-19/influenza rapid diagnostic test in the Brazilian private healthcare setting.

Combination COVID-19/influenza rapid tests provide a way to quickly and accurately differentiate between the two infections. The goal of this economic evaluation was to assess the cost and health benefits of a combination COVID-19/influenza Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) vs. current standard-of-care in the Brazilian private healthcare setting. A dual decision tree model was developed to estimate the impact of rapid differentiation of COVID-19 and influenza in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 adults with influenza-like illness in an ambulatory healthcare setting. The model compared the use of a combination COVID-19/influenza RDT to Brazil standard diagnostic practice of a COVID-19 RDT and presumptive influenza diagnosis. Different levels of influenza prevalence were modeled with co-infection estimated as a function of the COVID-19 prevalence. Outcomes included accuracy of diagnosis, antiviral prescriptions and healthcare resource use (hospital bed days and ICU occupancy). Depending on influenza prevalence, considering 1,000 patients with influenza-like illness, a combination RDT compared to standard practice was estimated to result in between 88 and 149 fewer missed diagnoses of influenza (including co-infection), 161 to 185 fewer cases of over-diagnosis of influenza; a 24 to 34% reduction in hospital bed days and a 16 to 26% reduction in ICU days. In the base case scenario (20% influenza, 5% COVID-19), the combination RDT was estimated to result in cohort cost savings of $99. Based upon a de novo economic model, this analysis indicates that use of a combination RDT could positively impact influenza antiviral prescriptions and lower healthcare resource use.

Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Although serologic tests for COVID-19 diagnosis are rarely indicated nowadays, they remain commercially available and widely used in Brazil. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2antibody diagnostic tests for COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: Eleven commercially available diagnostic tests, comprising five lateral-flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) and six immunoenzymatic assays (ELISA) were analyzed from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System. RESULTS: The direct costs of LFAs ranged from US$ 11.42 to US$ 17.41and of ELISAs, from US$ 6.59 to US$ 10.31. Considering an estimated disease prevalence between 5% and 10%, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (IgG) was the most cost-effective test, followed by the rapid One Step COVID-19 Test, at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$ 2.52 and US$ 1.26 per properly diagnosed case, respectively. Considering only the LFAs, at the same prevalence estimates, two tests, the COVID-19 IgG/IgM and the One Step COVID-19 Test, showed high effectiveness at similar costs. For situations where the estimated probability of disease is 50%, the LFAs are more costly and less effective alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Nowadays there are few indications for the use of serologic tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19 and numerous commercially available tests, with marked differences are observed among them. In general, LFA tests are more cost-effective for estimated low-COVID-19-prevalences, while ELISAs are more cost-effective for high-pretest-probability scenarios.