Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil
Carregando...
Data
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Descrição
Tipo
Artigo de periódico
Título alternativo
Primeiro orientador
Membros da banca
Resumo
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.
Abstract
Assunto
Teste para COVID-19, Avaliação de Custo-Efetividade, Brasil
Palavras-chave
Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Diagnostic tests, Cost-effectiveness, Brazil
Citação
Curso
Endereço externo
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0264159