Dataset Information

Comparative cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies in the USA: a modelling study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, countries worldwide have enacted unprecedented movement restrictions, physical distancing measures, and face mask requirements. Until safe and efficacious vaccines or antiviral drugs become widely available, viral testing remains the primary mitigation measure for rapid identification and isolation of infected individuals. We aimed to assess the economic trade-offs of expanding and accelerating testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) across the USA in different transmission scenarios.

Methods

We used a multiscale model that incorporates SARS-CoV-2 transmission at the population level and daily viral load dynamics at the individual level to assess eight surveillance testing strategies that varied by testing frequency (from daily to monthly testing) and isolation period (1 or 2 weeks), compared with the status-quo strategy of symptom-based testing and isolation. For each testing strategy, we first estimated the costs (incorporating costs of diagnostic testing and admissions to hospital, and salary lost while in isolation) and years of life lost (YLLs) prevented under rapid and low transmission scenarios. We then assessed the testing strategies across a range of scenarios, each defined by effective reproduction number (R_e), willingness to pay per YLL averted, and cost of a test, to estimate the probability that a particular strategy had the greatest net benefit. Additionally, for a range of transmission scenarios (R_e from 1·1 to 3), we estimated a threshold test price at which the status-quo strategy outperforms all testing strategies considered.

Findings

Our modelling showed that daily testing combined with a 2-week isolation period was the most costly strategy considered, reflecting increased costs with greater test frequency and length of isolation period. Assuming a societal willingness to pay of US$100 000 per YLL averted and a price of $5 per test, the strategy most likely to be cost-effective under a rapid transmission scenario (R_e of 2·2) is weekly testing followed by a 2-week isolation period subsequent to a positive test result. Under low transmission scenarios (R_e of 1·2), monthly testing of the population followed by 1-week isolation rather than 2-week isolation is likely to be most cost-effective. Expanded surveillance testing is more likely to be cost-effective than the status-quo testing strategy if the price per test is less than $75 across all transmission rates considered.

Interpretation

Extensive expansion of SARS-CoV-2 testing programmes with more frequent and rapid tests across communities coupled with isolation of individuals with confirmed infection is essential for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, resources recouped from shortened isolation duration could be cost-effectively allocated to more frequent testing.

Funding

US National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Love, Tito's.

SUBMITTER: Du Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7862022 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn most countries, contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases are asked to quarantine for 14 days after exposure to limit asymptomatic onward transmission. While theoretically effective, this policy places a substantial social and economic burden on both the individual and wider society, which might result in low adherence and reduced policy effectiveness. We aimed to assess the merit of testing contacts to avert onward transmission and to replace or reduce the length of quarantine for uninfected contacts.MethodsWe used an agent-based model to simulate the viral load dynamics of exposed contacts, and their potential for onward transmission in different quarantine and testing strategies. We compared the performance of quarantines of differing durations, testing with either PCR or lateral flow antigen (LFA) tests at the end of quarantine, and daily LFA testing without quarantine, against the current 14-day quarantine strategy. We also investigated the effect of contact tracing delays and adherence to both quarantine and self-isolation on the effectiveness of each strategy.FindingsAssuming moderate levels of adherence to quarantine and self-isolation, self-isolation on symptom onset alone can prevent 37% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 12-56) of onward transmission potential from secondary cases. 14 days of post-exposure quarantine reduces transmission by 59% (95% UI 28-79). Quarantine with release after a negative PCR test 7 days after exposure might avert a similar proportion (54%, 95% UI 31-81; risk ratio [RR] 0·94, 95% UI 0·62-1·24) to that of the 14-day quarantine period, as would quarantine with a negative LFA test 7 days after exposure (50%, 95% UI 28-77; RR 0·88, 0·66-1·11) or daily testing without quarantine for 5 days after tracing (50%, 95% UI 23-81; RR 0·88, 0·60-1·43) if all tests are returned negative. A stronger effect might be possible if individuals isolate more strictly after a positive test and if contacts can be notified faster.InterpretationTesting might allow for a substantial reduction in the length of, or replacement of, quarantine with a small excess in transmission risk. Decreasing test and trace delays and increasing adherence will further increase the effectiveness of these strategies. Further research is required to empirically evaluate the potential costs (increased transmission risk, false reassurance) and benefits (reduction in the burden of quarantine, increased adherence) of such strategies before adoption as policy.FundingNational Institute for Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, EU Horizon 2021, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundDual HIV and syphilis testing might help to prevent mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV and syphilis through increased case detection and treatment. We aimed to model and assess the cost-effectiveness of dual testing during antenatal care in four countries with varying HIV and syphilis prevalence.MethodsIn this modelling study, we developed Markov models of HIV and syphilis in pregnant women to estimate costs and infant health outcomes of maternal testing at the first antenatal care visit with individual HIV and syphilis tests (base case) and at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario one). We additionally evaluated retesting during late antenatal care and at delivery with either individual tests (scenario two) or a dual rapid diagnosis test (scenario three). We modelled four countries: South Africa, Kenya, Colombia, and Ukraine. Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the country-specific cost-effectiveness threshold (US$500 in Kenya, $750 in South Africa, $3000 in Colombia, and $1000 in Ukraine) per disability-adjusted life-year averted were considered cost-effective.FindingsRoutinely offering testing at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnosis test was cost-saving compared with the base case in all four countries (ICER: -$26 in Kenya,-$559 in South Africa, -$844 in Colombia, and -$454 in Ukraine). Retesting during late antenatal care with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario three) was cost-effective compared with scenario one in all four countries (ICER: $270 in Kenya, $260 in South Africa, $2207 in Colombia, and $205 in Ukraine).InterpretationIncorporating dual rapid diagnostic tests in antenatal care can be cost-saving across countries with varying HIV prevalence. Countries should consider incorporating dual HIV and syphilis rapid diagnostic tests as the first test in antenatal care to support efforts to eliminate MTCT of HIV and syphilis.FundingWHO, US Agency for International Development, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundChlamydia is the most common sexually transmitted bacterial infection in Scotland, and is associated with potentially serious reproductive outcomes, including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and tubal factor infertility (TFI) in women. Chlamydia testing in Scotland is currently targeted towards symptomatic individuals, individuals at high risk of existing undetected infection, and young people. The cost-effectiveness of testing and treatment to prevent PID and TFI in Scotland is uncertain.MethodsA compartmental deterministic dynamic model of chlamydia infection in 15-24 year olds in Scotland was developed. The model was used to estimate the impact of a change in testing strategy from baseline (16.8% overall testing coverage; 0.4 partners notified and tested/treated per treated positive index) on PID and TFI cases. Cost-effectiveness calculations informed by best-available estimates of the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost due to PID and TFI were also performed.ResultsIncreasing overall testing coverage by 50% from baseline to 25.2% is estimated to result in 21% fewer cases in young women each year (PID: 703 fewer; TFI: 88 fewer). A 50% decrease to 8.4% would result in 20% more PID (669 additional) and TFI (84 additional) cases occurring annually. The cost per QALY gained of current testing activities compared to no testing is £40,034, which is above the £20,000-£30,000 cost-effectiveness threshold. However, calculations are hampered by lack of reliable data. Any increase in partner notification from baseline would be cost-effective (incremental cost per QALY gained for a partner notification efficacy of 1 compared to baseline: £5,119), and would increase the cost-effectiveness of current testing strategy compared to no testing, with threshold cost-effectiveness reached at a partner notification efficacy of 1.5. However, there is uncertainty in the extent to which partner notification is currently done, and hence the amount by which it could potentially be increased.ConclusionsCurrent chlamydia testing strategy in Scotland is not cost-effective under the conservative model assumptions applied. However, with better data enabling some of these assumptions to be relaxed, current coverage could be cost-effective. Meanwhile, increasing partner notification efficacy on its own would be a cost-effective way of preventing PID and TFI from current strategy.