• Login
    View Item 
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • View Item
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of UMB Digital ArchiveCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Comparative cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies in the USA: a modelling study

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Publisher version
    View Source
    Access full-text PDFOpen Access
    View Source
    Check access options
    Check access options
    Author
    Du, Zhanwei
    Pandey, Abhishek
    Bai, Yuan
    Fitzpatrick, Meagan C.
    Chinazzi, Matteo
    Pastore y Piontti, Ana
    Lachmann, Michael
    Vespignani, Alessandro
    Cowling, Benjamin J.
    Galvani, Alison P.
    Meyers, Lauren Ancel
    Show allShow less

    Date
    2021-02-05
    Journal
    The Lancet Public Health
    Publisher
    Elsevier Ltd.
    Type
    Article
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    See at
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00002-5
    Abstract
    Background: To mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, countries worldwide have enacted unprecedented movement restrictions, physical distancing measures, and face mask requirements. Until safe and efficacious vaccines or antiviral drugs become widely available, viral testing remains the primary mitigation measure for rapid identification and isolation of infected individuals. We aimed to assess the economic trade-offs of expanding and accelerating testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) across the USA in different transmission scenarios. Methods: We used a multiscale model that incorporates SARS-CoV-2 transmission at the population level and daily viral load dynamics at the individual level to assess eight surveillance testing strategies that varied by testing frequency (from daily to monthly testing) and isolation period (1 or 2 weeks), compared with the status-quo strategy of symptom-based testing and isolation. For each testing strategy, we first estimated the costs (incorporating costs of diagnostic testing and admissions to hospital, and salary lost while in isolation) and years of life lost (YLLs) prevented under rapid and low transmission scenarios. We then assessed the testing strategies across a range of scenarios, each defined by effective reproduction number (Re), willingness to pay per YLL averted, and cost of a test, to estimate the probability that a particular strategy had the greatest net benefit. Additionally, for a range of transmission scenarios (Re from 1·1 to 3), we estimated a threshold test price at which the status-quo strategy outperforms all testing strategies considered. Findings: Our modelling showed that daily testing combined with a 2-week isolation period was the most costly strategy considered, reflecting increased costs with greater test frequency and length of isolation period. Assuming a societal willingness to pay of US$100 000 per YLL averted and a price of $5 per test, the strategy most likely to be cost-effective under a rapid transmission scenario (Re of 2·2) is weekly testing followed by a 2-week isolation period subsequent to a positive test result. Under low transmission scenarios (Re of 1·2), monthly testing of the population followed by 1-week isolation rather than 2-week isolation is likely to be most cost-effective. Expanded surveillance testing is more likely to be cost-effective than the status-quo testing strategy if the price per test is less than $75 across all transmission rates considered. Interpretation: Extensive expansion of SARS-CoV-2 testing programmes with more frequent and rapid tests across communities coupled with isolation of individuals with confirmed infection is essential for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, resources recouped from shortened isolation duration could be cost-effectively allocated to more frequent testing. Funding: US National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Love, Tito's. © 2021 The Author(s).
    Sponsors
    National Institutes of Health
    Keyword
    COVID-19 Testing
    Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Identifier to cite or link to this item
    http://hdl.handle.net/10713/14844
    ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
    10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00002-5
    Scopus Count
    Collections
    UMB Open Access Articles
    UMB Coronavirus Publications

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2022)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Policies | Contact Us | UMB Health Sciences & Human Services Library
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.