1. Repositório Institucional da UFMG
  2. Publicações Científicas e Culturais
  3. Artigo de Periódico
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/61860
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorTália Santana Machado de Assispt_BR
dc.creatorMariana Lourenço Freirept_BR
dc.creatorJanaína de Pina Carvalhopt_BR
dc.creatorAna Rabellopt_BR
dc.creatorGlaucia Fernandes Cotapt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-07T22:52:07Z-
dc.date.available2023-12-07T22:52:07Z-
dc.date.issued2022-02-25-
dc.citation.volume17pt_BR
dc.citation.issue2pt_BR
dc.citation.spage1pt_BR
dc.citation.epage13pt_BR
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264159pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1843/61860-
dc.description.resumoBackground 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.pt_BR
dc.format.mimetypepdfpt_BR
dc.languageengpt_BR
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal de Minas Geraispt_BR
dc.publisher.countryBrasilpt_BR
dc.publisher.departmentHCL - HOSPITAL DAS CLINICASpt_BR
dc.publisher.departmentMEDICINA - FACULDADE DE MEDICINApt_BR
dc.publisher.initialsUFMGpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofPlos Onept_BR
dc.rightsAcesso Abertopt_BR
dc.subjectAnti-SARS-CoV-2pt_BR
dc.subjectDiagnostic testspt_BR
dc.subjectCost-effectivenesspt_BR
dc.subjectBrazilpt_BR
dc.subject.otherTeste para COVID-19pt_BR
dc.subject.otherAvaliação de Custo-Efetividadept_BR
dc.subject.otherBrasilpt_BR
dc.titleCost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazilpt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicopt_BR
dc.url.externahttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0264159pt_BR
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0538-7403pt_BR
Appears in Collections:Artigo de Periódico

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil.pdf231.05 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.