Cargando…

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: Ele...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Assis, Tália Santana Machado, Freire, Mariana Lourenço, Carvalho, Janaína de Pina, Rabello, Ana, Cota, Gláucia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8880880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35213578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264159
_version_ 1784659331747151872
author de Assis, Tália Santana Machado
Freire, Mariana Lourenço
Carvalho, Janaína de Pina
Rabello, Ana
Cota, Gláucia
author_facet de Assis, Tália Santana Machado
Freire, Mariana Lourenço
Carvalho, Janaína de Pina
Rabello, Ana
Cota, Gláucia
author_sort de Assis, Tália Santana Machado
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8880880
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88808802022-02-26 Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil de Assis, Tália Santana Machado Freire, Mariana Lourenço Carvalho, Janaína de Pina Rabello, Ana Cota, Gláucia PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2022-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8880880/ /pubmed/35213578 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264159 Text en © 2022 de Assis et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
de Assis, Tália Santana Machado
Freire, Mariana Lourenço
Carvalho, Janaína de Pina
Rabello, Ana
Cota, Gláucia
Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil
title Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil
title_full Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil
title_short Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil
title_sort cost-effectiveness of anti-sars-cov-2 antibody diagnostic tests in brazil
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8880880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35213578
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264159
work_keys_str_mv AT deassistaliasantanamachado costeffectivenessofantisarscov2antibodydiagnostictestsinbrazil
AT freiremarianalourenco costeffectivenessofantisarscov2antibodydiagnostictestsinbrazil
AT carvalhojanainadepina costeffectivenessofantisarscov2antibodydiagnostictestsinbrazil
AT rabelloana costeffectivenessofantisarscov2antibodydiagnostictestsinbrazil
AT cotaglaucia costeffectivenessofantisarscov2antibodydiagnostictestsinbrazil