Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fff43/fff435a6673b4ccb0fb2b6c004bd7685e10aa816" alt="loading"
Processing Request
Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil.
Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fff43/fff435a6673b4ccb0fb2b6c004bd7685e10aa816" alt="loading"
Processing Request
- معلومة اضافية
- المصدر:
Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE
- بيانات النشر:
Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science
- الموضوع:
- نبذة مختصرة :
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.
Competing Interests: No authors have competing interests
- References:
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 25;6:CD013652. (PMID: 32584464)
JAMA. 2020 Apr 21;323(15):1499-1500. (PMID: 32159735)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jul 28;117(30):17513-17515. (PMID: 32632012)
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 28;15(8):e0238417. (PMID: 32857823)
Lancet Glob Health. 2023 Jun;11(6):e833-e842. (PMID: 37202020)
Med Care. 2009 Jul;47(7 Suppl 1):S76-81. (PMID: 19536026)
Lancet. 2020 Aug 22;396(10250):535-544. (PMID: 32645347)
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;101:382-390. (PMID: 33039612)
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;20(12):1381-1389. (PMID: 32822577)
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):2081-2090. (PMID: 32329971)
Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):231-50. (PMID: 23538175)
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 Mar 23;8(7):ofab144. (PMID: 34316498)
Cad Saude Publica. 2017 May 18;33(4):e00040717. (PMID: 28538787)
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Nov 2;73(9):e2908-e2917. (PMID: 32945845)
Sci Adv. 2021 Jan 1;7(1):. (PMID: 33219112)
- الرقم المعرف:
0 (Antibodies, Viral)
- الموضوع:
Date Created: 20220225 Date Completed: 20220307 Latest Revision: 20240824
- الموضوع:
20250114
- الرقم المعرف:
PMC8880880
- الرقم المعرف:
10.1371/journal.pone.0264159
- الرقم المعرف:
35213578
No Comments.