Your browser doesn't support javascript.
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.
  • de Assis TSM; Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Minas Gerais, Contagem, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
  • Freire ML; Pesquisa Clínica e Políticas Públicas em Doenças Infecto-Parasitárias, Instituto René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
  • Carvalho JP; Pesquisa Clínica e Políticas Públicas em Doenças Infecto-Parasitárias, Instituto René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
  • Rabello A; Pesquisa Clínica e Políticas Públicas em Doenças Infecto-Parasitárias, Instituto René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
  • Cota G; Pesquisa Clínica e Políticas Públicas em Doenças Infecto-Parasitárias, Instituto René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
PLoS One ; 17(2): e0264159, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1910540
ABSTRACT

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.
Subject(s)

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Testing / COVID-19 / Antibodies, Viral Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: South America / Brazil Language: English Journal: PLoS One Journal subject: Science / Medicine Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Journal.pone.0264159

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Testing / COVID-19 / Antibodies, Viral Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: South America / Brazil Language: English Journal: PLoS One Journal subject: Science / Medicine Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Journal.pone.0264159