Cost-effectiveness of COVID rapid diagnostic tests for patients with severe/critical illness in low- and middle-income countries: A modeling study.

IF 15.8 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-18 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004429
Gabrielle Bonnet, John Bimba, Chancy Chavula, Harunavamwe N Chifamba, Titus H Divala, Andres G Lescano, Mohammed Majam, Danjuma Mbo, Auliya A Suwantika, Marco A Tovar, Pragya Yadav, Obinna Ekwunife, Collin Mangenah, Lucky G Ngwira, Elizabeth L Corbett, Mark Jit, Anna Vassall
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of COVID rapid diagnostic tests for patients with severe/critical illness in low- and middle-income countries: A modeling study.","authors":"Gabrielle Bonnet, John Bimba, Chancy Chavula, Harunavamwe N Chifamba, Titus H Divala, Andres G Lescano, Mohammed Majam, Danjuma Mbo, Auliya A Suwantika, Marco A Tovar, Pragya Yadav, Obinna Ekwunife, Collin Mangenah, Lucky G Ngwira, Elizabeth L Corbett, Mark Jit, Anna Vassall","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for coronavirus disease (COVID) are used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to inform treatment decisions. However, to date, it is unclear when this use is cost-effective. Existing analyses are limited to a narrow set of countries and uses. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID RDTs to inform the treatment of patients with severe illness in LMICs, considering real world practice.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We assessed the cost-effectiveness of COVID testing across LMICs using a decision tree model, differentiating results by country income level, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence, and testing scenario (none, RDTs, polymerase chain reaction tests-PCRs and combinations). LMIC experts defined realistic care pathways and treatment options. Using a healthcare provider perspective and net monetary benefit approach, we assessed both intended (COVID symptom alleviation) and unintended (treatment side effects) health and economic impacts for each testing scenario. We included the side effects of corticosteroids, which are often the only available treatment for COVID. Because side effects depend both on the treatment and the patient's underlying illness (COVID or COVID-like illnesses, such as influenza), we considered the prevalence of COVID-like illnesses in our analyses. We found that SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients with severe COVID-like illness can be cost-effective in all LMICs, though only in some circumstances. High influenza prevalence among suspected COVID cases improves cost-effectiveness, since incorrectly provided corticosteroids may worsen influenza outcomes. In low- and some lower-middle-income countries, only patients with a high index of suspicion for COVID should be tested with RDTs, while other patients should be presumed to not have COVID. In some lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries, suspected severe COVID cases should almost always be tested. Further, in these settings, negative test results in patients with a high initial index of suspicion should be confirmed through PCR and, during influenza outbreaks, positive results in patients with a low initial index of suspicion should also be confirmed with a PCR. The use of interleukin-6 receptor blockers, when supported by testing, may also be cost-effective in higher-income LMICs. The cost at which they would be cost-effective in low-income countries ($162 to $406 per treatment course) is below current prices. The primary limitation of our analysis is substantial uncertainty around some of the parameters in our model due to limited data, most notably on current COVID mortality with standard of care, and insufficient evidence on the impact of corticosteroids on patients with severe influenza.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>COVID testing can be cost-effective to inform treatment of LMIC patients with severe COVID-like disease. The optimal algorithm is driven by country income level and health budgets, the level of suspicion that the patient may have COVID, and influenza prevalence. Further research to better characterize the unintended effects of corticosteroids, particularly on influenza cases, could improve decision making around the treatment of those with COVID-like symptoms in LMICs.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":"21 7","pages":"e1004429"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11293649/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004429","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for coronavirus disease (COVID) are used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to inform treatment decisions. However, to date, it is unclear when this use is cost-effective. Existing analyses are limited to a narrow set of countries and uses. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID RDTs to inform the treatment of patients with severe illness in LMICs, considering real world practice.

Methods and findings: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of COVID testing across LMICs using a decision tree model, differentiating results by country income level, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence, and testing scenario (none, RDTs, polymerase chain reaction tests-PCRs and combinations). LMIC experts defined realistic care pathways and treatment options. Using a healthcare provider perspective and net monetary benefit approach, we assessed both intended (COVID symptom alleviation) and unintended (treatment side effects) health and economic impacts for each testing scenario. We included the side effects of corticosteroids, which are often the only available treatment for COVID. Because side effects depend both on the treatment and the patient's underlying illness (COVID or COVID-like illnesses, such as influenza), we considered the prevalence of COVID-like illnesses in our analyses. We found that SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients with severe COVID-like illness can be cost-effective in all LMICs, though only in some circumstances. High influenza prevalence among suspected COVID cases improves cost-effectiveness, since incorrectly provided corticosteroids may worsen influenza outcomes. In low- and some lower-middle-income countries, only patients with a high index of suspicion for COVID should be tested with RDTs, while other patients should be presumed to not have COVID. In some lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries, suspected severe COVID cases should almost always be tested. Further, in these settings, negative test results in patients with a high initial index of suspicion should be confirmed through PCR and, during influenza outbreaks, positive results in patients with a low initial index of suspicion should also be confirmed with a PCR. The use of interleukin-6 receptor blockers, when supported by testing, may also be cost-effective in higher-income LMICs. The cost at which they would be cost-effective in low-income countries ($162 to $406 per treatment course) is below current prices. The primary limitation of our analysis is substantial uncertainty around some of the parameters in our model due to limited data, most notably on current COVID mortality with standard of care, and insufficient evidence on the impact of corticosteroids on patients with severe influenza.

Conclusions: COVID testing can be cost-effective to inform treatment of LMIC patients with severe COVID-like disease. The optimal algorithm is driven by country income level and health budgets, the level of suspicion that the patient may have COVID, and influenza prevalence. Further research to better characterize the unintended effects of corticosteroids, particularly on influenza cases, could improve decision making around the treatment of those with COVID-like symptoms in LMICs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中低收入国家重症/危重症患者 COVID 快速诊断检测的成本效益:模型研究。
背景:冠状病毒病(COVID)快速诊断检测(RDT)被用于中低收入国家(LMIC),为治疗决策提供依据。然而,迄今为止,尚不清楚何时使用这种方法具有成本效益。现有的分析仅限于少数国家和用途。本研究的目的是评估 COVID RDT 的成本效益,以便为 LMICs 重症患者的治疗提供参考,同时考虑到现实世界的实践:我们使用决策树模型评估了在低收入与中等收入国家进行 COVID 检测的成本效益,并根据国家收入水平、严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒 2 (SARS-CoV-2) 流行率和检测方案(无、RDT、聚合酶链反应检测-PCR 和组合)对结果进行了区分。低收入与中等收入国家的专家确定了切合实际的护理路径和治疗方案。我们采用医疗服务提供者视角和净货币收益法,评估了每种检测方案的预期(COVID 症状缓解)和非预期(治疗副作用)健康和经济影响。我们将皮质类固醇的副作用包括在内,因为皮质类固醇通常是治疗 COVID 的唯一方法。由于副作用取决于治疗方法和患者的基础疾病(COVID 或类似 COVID 的疾病,如流感),因此我们在分析中考虑了类似 COVID 疾病的发病率。我们发现,在所有低收入国家和地区,对患有严重 COVID-like 疾病的患者进行 SARS-CoV-2 检测都具有成本效益,尽管只是在某些情况下。在疑似 COVID 病例中,流感发病率高会提高成本效益,因为错误提供皮质类固醇可能会加重流感的后果。在低收入和一些中低收入国家,只有高度怀疑感染 COVID 的患者才应接受 RDT 检测,而其他患者应被推定为未感染 COVID。在一些中低收入和中高收入国家,严重的 COVID 疑似病例几乎都应接受检测。此外,在这些国家,最初怀疑指数较高的患者的阴性检测结果应通过 PCR 加以确认,而在流感爆发期间,最初怀疑指数较低的患者的阳性检测结果也应通过 PCR 加以确认。在收入较高的低收入国家和地区,使用白细胞介素-6 受体阻断剂(如有检测结果支持)也可能具有成本效益。这些药物在低收入国家具有成本效益的成本(每个疗程 162 美元至 406 美元)低于目前的价格。我们分析的主要局限性在于,由于数据有限,我们模型中的一些参数存在很大的不确定性,尤其是目前COVID死亡率与标准治疗的关系,以及皮质类固醇对重症流感患者影响的证据不足:结论:COVID检测可为低收入国家重症类COVID患者的治疗提供依据,具有成本效益。最佳算法取决于国家收入水平和卫生预算、怀疑患者可能患有 COVID 的程度以及流感流行率。为更好地描述皮质类固醇的意外影响,尤其是对流感病例的影响而开展的进一步研究,可改善低收入国家和地区在治疗 COVID 类症状患者方面的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
期刊最新文献
The critical need for a robust research agenda on ultra-processed food consumption and cancer risk. The NOVA system can be used to address harmful foods and harmful food systems. Identification and outcomes of acute kidney disease in patients presenting in Bolivia, Brazil, South Africa, and Nepal. The association of bearing surface materials with the risk of revision following primary total hip replacement: A cohort analysis of 1,026,481 hip replacements from the National Joint Registry. Impact of active case finding for tuberculosis with mass chest X-ray screening in Glasgow, Scotland, 1950-1963: An epidemiological analysis of historical data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1