21 April 2024: Meta-Analysis
Economic Evaluation of COVID-19 Screening Tests and Surveillance Strategies in Low-Income, Middle-Income, and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review
Abdul Khairul Rizki Purba 123ABCDEF* , Alfian Nur Rosyid 4ABCEF , Samsriyaningsih Handayani 5ABCDF , Brian Eka Rachman 6BC , Achmad Chusnu Romdhoni 7CD , Makhyan Jibril Al Farabi 8CD , Joni Wahyuhadi 9CD , Rosita Prananingtias 10BEF , Ainun Nitsa Rahayu 11BEF , Firas Farisi Alkaff 1213CD , Yufi Aulia Azmi 1415CD , Sabarinah Prasetyo 16EG , Mardiati Nadjib 17DE , Lina Patricia Gutjahr 18EF , Raudia Faridah Humaidy 19CDDOI: 10.12659/MSM.943863
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e943863
Table 2 Economic evaluation, cost outcome, and health related quality of life.
| Author, year | Intervention model | Cost (in US$) | Incremental cost | HRQoL | Incremental QALY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chaki et al, 2022 []21 | RT-Qpcr | US $4–$8 per single sample | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Drakesmith et al, 2022 []27 | The worst-case scenario: 160 (142, 180) cases prevented, which is 44% of the original estimate and 6% of the actual case count.The best-case scenario: 2333 (1764, 3115), 648% of the original estimate and 80% of the actual case count | Hospitalization costs: US $210,312.59 (US $140,207.57–$315,467.63)ICU admission costs: US $137,282.30 (US $82,368.89–$164.73)Death averted costs: US $4,304,412 (US $3,156.57–$5,739,216)Program costs: US $637,854.49 | The cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained | QALY | N/A |
| Du et al, 2021 []22 | Different strategies on the testing frequency and isolation period | The testing threshold ranged from US $75–$275 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Larremore et al, 2021 []23 | RT-PCR | $0.25/test | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Lyng et al, 2021 []24 | Simulated data set incorporating community prevalence and test performance in susceptible, infectious, removed compartmental model, analyzing impact of variables on outcomes, including case reduction and false positives | All confirmatory tests cost $100 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Schaaf et al, 2021 []25 | Surveillance testing was conducted on ONU’s Bourbonnais campus in Illinois, USA, for residential students. Population target: Higher-exposure students were tested twice weekly, while other undergraduates were tested weekly. Students collected saliva samples, avoiding dental hygiene for 30 min before collection | The total per-sample consumable cost of $0.43 is the lowest to date | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Simonetti et al, 2021 []28 | Real-time PCR | The cost per sample would be approximately US $37, US $22, and US $20 for 1000, 10 000, and 100 000 samples, respectively | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Wang et al, 2022 []26 | 18 NAT scenarios designed, comparing cost-effectiveness using an agent-based model for surveillance strategies. | The cost to detect 1 infection was US $27,800 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| NAT – nucleic acid test; N/A – not applicable; RT PCR – reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction; RT-qPCR – reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction; HRQoL – health related quality of life; ICER – incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY – quality-adjusted life year. | |||||