Cost-effectiveness of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and isolation strategies in nursing homes.

OBJECTIVE: Nursing home residents may be particularly vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, a question is when and how often nursing homes should test staff for COVID-19 and how this may change as severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) evolves. DESIGN: We developed an agent-based model representing a typical nursing home, COVID-19 spread, and its health and economic outcomes to determine the clinical and economic value of various screening and isolation strategies and how it may change under various circumstances. RESULTS: Under winter 2023-2024 SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant conditions, symptom-based antigen testing averted 4.5 COVID-19 cases compared to no testing, saving $191 in direct medical costs. Testing implementation costs far outweighed these savings, resulting in net costs of $990 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services perspective, $1,545 from the third-party payer perspective, and $57,155 from the societal perspective. Testing did not return sufficient positive health effects to make it cost-effective [$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) threshold], but it exceeded this threshold in ≥59% of simulation trials. Testing remained cost-ineffective when routinely testing staff and varying face mask compliance, vaccine efficacy, and booster coverage. However, all antigen testing strategies became cost-effective (≤$31,906 per QALY) or cost saving (saving ≤$18,372) when the severe outcome risk was ≥3 times higher than that of current omicron variants. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 testing costs outweighed benefits under winter 2023-2024 conditions; however, testing became cost-effective with increasingly severe clinical outcomes. Cost-effectiveness can change as the epidemic evolves because it depends on clinical severity and other intervention use. Thus, nursing home administrators and policy makers should monitor and evaluate viral virulence and other interventions over time.

An Economic Evaluation of Government-Funded COVID-19 Testing in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Easy and equitable access to testing has been a cornerstone of the public health response to COVID-19. Currently in Australia, testing using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for COVID-19 is free to the user, but government funding for rapid antigen tests (RATs) is limited. We conduct an economic analysis of alternative government policies regarding the funding of COVID-19 testing in Australia. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to describe COVID-19 testing pathways for the Australian population over a 1-week period. The model outputs were analysed to estimate R numbers associated with alternative funding policies, which were used to estimate COVID-19 cases over a 6-month time horizon. Healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) effects were applied to new COVID-19 cases. The model was populated using responses to a de novo population survey and published data sources. RESULTS: Compared with no government-funded COVID-19 testing, government-funded testing is estimated to generate large incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs), up to A$15 billion in the base-case analyses. Government-funded PCR testing and RATs for all is predicted to maximise INMBs in most tested scenarios, though funding RATs for all and not PCR tests has similar INMBs in many scenarios and generates higher benefits to costs ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Our interpretation of the modelled analysis is that at the time of writing (July 2022), with high vaccination uptake in Australia and few other public health measures in place, Australian governments should consider reducing funding of PCR testing, for example, limiting capacity to essential workers and individuals with known risk factors for serious symptoms, and fund RATs for all.

Cost analysis of coronavirus disease 2019 test strategies using pooled reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction technique.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the testing strategies for COVID-19 (i.e., individual, simple pooling, and matrix pooling) in terms of cost. METHODS: We simulated the total expenditures of each testing strategy for running 10,000 tests. Three parameters were used: positive rate (PR), pool size, and test cost. We compared the total testing costs under two hypothetical scenarios in South Korea. We also simulated country-specific circumstances in India, South Africa, South Korea, the UK, and the USA. RESULTS: At extreme PRs of 0.01% and 10%, simple pooling was the most economic option and resulted in cost reductions of 98.0% (pool size ≥80) and 36.7% (pool size = 3), respectively. At moderate PRs of 0.1%, 1%, 2%, and 5%, the matrix pooling strategy was the most economic option and resulted in cost reductions of 97.0% (pool size ≥88), 86.1% (pool size = 22), 77.9% (pool size = 14), and 59.2% (pool size = 7), respectively. In both hypothetical scenarios of South Korea, simple pooling costs less than matrix pooling. However, the preferable options for achieving cost savings differed depending on each country's cost per test and PRs. CONCLUSIONS: Both pooling strategies resulted in notable cost reductions compared with individual testing in most scenarios pertinent to real-life situations. The appropriate type of testing strategy should be chosen by considering the PR of COVID-19 in the community and the test cost while using an appropriate pooling size such as five specimens.

Cost-effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody diagnostic tests in Brazil.

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.

Aptamers-Diagnostic and Therapeutic Solution in SARS-CoV-2.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is currently the most serious challenge to global public health. Its emergence has severely disrupted the functioning of health services and the economic and social situation worldwide. Therefore, new diagnostic and therapeutic tools are urgently needed to allow for the early detection of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and appropriate treatment, which is crucial for the effective control of the COVID-19 disease. The ideal solution seems to be the use of aptamers-short fragments of nucleic acids, DNA or RNA-that can bind selected proteins with high specificity and affinity. They can be used in methods that base the reading of the test result on fluorescence phenomena, chemiluminescence, and electrochemical changes. Exploiting the properties of aptamers will enable the introduction of rapid, sensitive, specific, and low-cost tests for the routine diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Aptamers are excellent candidates for the development of point-of-care diagnostic devices and are potential therapeutic tools for the treatment of COVID-19. They can effectively block coronavirus activity in multiple fields by binding viral proteins and acting as carriers of therapeutic substances. In this review, we present recent developments in the design of various types of aptasensors to detect and treat the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Behavioral economic methods to inform infectious disease response: Prevention, testing, and vaccination in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The role of human behavior to thwart transmission of infectious diseases like COVID-19 is evident. Psychological and behavioral science are key areas to understand decision-making processes underlying engagement in preventive health behaviors. Here we adapt well validated methods from behavioral economic discounting and demand frameworks to evaluate variables (e.g., delay, cost, probability) known to impact health behavior engagement. We examine the contribution of these mechanisms within a broader response class of behaviors reflecting adherence to public health recommendations made during the COVID-19 pandemic. Four crowdsourced samples (total N = 1,366) completed individual experiments probing a response class including social (physical) distancing, facemask wearing, COVID-19 testing, and COVID-19 vaccination. We also measure the extent to which choice architecture manipulations (e.g., framing, opt-in/opt-out) may promote (or discourage) behavior engagement. We find that people are more likely to socially distance when specified activities are framed as high risk, that facemask use during social interaction decreases systematically with greater social relationship, that describing delay until testing (rather than delay until results) increases testing likelihood, and that framing vaccine safety in a positive valence improves vaccine acceptance. These findings collectively emphasize the flexibility of methods from diverse areas of behavioral science for informing public health crisis management.

"Covalent biosensing" enables a one-step, reagent-less, low-cost and highly robust assay of SARS-CoV-2.

We have established a new protocol for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using a peptidomimetic to covalently detect a viral marker protease.

Recent Advances in Novel Lateral Flow Technologies for Detection of COVID-19.

The development of reliable and robust diagnostic tests is one of the most efficient methods to limit the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, most laboratory diagnostics for COVID-19, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), are expensive, time-consuming, and require highly trained professional operators. On the other hand, the lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) is a simpler, cheaper device that can be operated by unskilled personnel easily. Unfortunately, the current technique has some limitations, mainly inaccuracy in detection. This review article aims to highlight recent advances in novel lateral flow technologies for detecting SARS-CoV-2 as well as innovative approaches to achieve highly sensitive and specific point-of-care testing. Lastly, we discuss future perspectives on how smartphones and Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be integrated to revolutionize disease detection as well as disease control and surveillance.

A rapid and reliable liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry method for SARS-CoV-2 analysis from gargle solutions and saliva.

We describe a rapid liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for the direct detection and quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein in gargle solutions and saliva. The method is based on a multiple-reaction monitoring (MRM) mass spectrometry approach with a total cycle time of 5 min per analysis and allows the detection and accurate quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein as low as 500 amol/µL. We improved the sample preparation protocol of our recent piloting SARS-CoV-2 LC-MS study regarding sensitivity, reproducibility, and compatibility with a complementary reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analysis of the same sample. The aim of this work is to promote diagnostic tools that allow identifying and monitoring SARS-CoV-2 infections by LC-MS/MS methods in a routine clinical environment.

The challenge of COVID-19 for a Clinical Microbiology Department.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the workload and cost overload that the COVID-19 pandemic has meant for a Clinical Microbiology laboratory in a real-life scenario. METHODS: We compared the number of samples received, their distribution, the human resources, and the budget of a Microbiology laboratory in the COVID pandemic (March-December 2020) with the same months of the previous year. RESULTS: the total number of samples processed in the Clinical Microbiology laboratory in March to December 2020 increased 96.70% with respect to 2019 (from 246,060 to 483,993 samples), reflecting an increment of 127.50% when expressed as samples/1000 admissions (from 6057 to 13,780). The increase in workload was mainly at the expense of the virology (+2058%) and serology (+86%) areas. Despite additional personnel hiring, the samples processed per technician increased 12.5%. The extra cost attributed to Microbiology amounts to 6,616,511 euros (114.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide quantitative figures about workload and cost increase caused by the COVID-19 in a Microbiology laboratory.

The RADxSM Tech Process: Accelerating Innovation for COVID-19 Testing.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for rapid and accurate diagnostic testing across populations quickly became evident. In response, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was determined not only to invest heavily in this area but to change the process by which grant proposals were reviewed and funded in order to spur faster development of viable technologies. The Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) initiative was designed to speed innovation, commercialization, and implementation of potential COVID-19 diagnostic technology. As part of this effort, the RADx Tech initiative focuses on the development, validation, and commercialization of innovative point-of-care, home-based, and clinical lab-based tests that can detect SARS-CoV-2. This effort was enabled through the NIH's National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) Point-of-Care Technology Research Network (POCTRN).

The detection dogs test is more sensitive than real-time PCR in screening for SARS-CoV-2.

In January 2020, the coronavirus disease was declared, by the World Health Organization as a global public health emergency. Recommendations from the WHO COVID Emergency Committee continue to support strengthening COVID surveillance systems, including timely access to effective diagnostics. Questions were raised about the validity of considering the RT-PCR as the gold standard in COVID-19 diagnosis. It has been suggested that a variety of methods should be used to evaluate advocated tests. Dogs had been successfully trained and employed to detect diseases in humans. Here we show that upon training explosives detection dogs on sniffing COVID-19 odor in patients' sweat, those dogs were able to successfully screen out 3249 individuals who tested negative for the SARS-CoV-2, from a cohort of 3290 individuals. Additionally, using Bayesian analysis, the sensitivity of the K9 test was found to be superior to the RT-PCR test performed on nasal swabs from a cohort of 3134 persons. Given its high sensitivity, short turn-around-time, low cost, less invasiveness, and ease of application, the detection dogs test lends itself as a better alternative to the RT-PCR in screening for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic individuals.