guest ::
| Home > Publications database > Cost and cost-effectiveness of four different SARS-CoV-2 active surveillance strategies: evidence from a randomised control trial in Germany. |
| Home > Publications database > Cost and cost-effectiveness of four different SARS-CoV-2 active surveillance strategies: evidence from a randomised control trial in Germany. |
| Journal Article | DKFZ-2023-00125 |
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
2023
Springer
Heidelberg
This record in other databases: 
Please use a persistent id in citations: doi:10.1007/s10198-022-01561-8
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has entered its third year and continues to affect most countries worldwide. Active surveillance, i.e. testing individuals irrespective of symptoms, presents a promising strategy to accurately measure the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to identify the most cost-effective active surveillance strategy for COVID-19 among the four strategies tested in a randomised control trial between 18th November 2020 and 23rd December 2020 in Germany. The four strategies included: (A1) direct testing of individuals; (A2) direct testing of households; (B1) testing conditioned on upstream COVID-19 symptom pre-screening of individuals; and (B2) testing conditioned on upstream COVID-19 symptom pre-screening of households.We adopted a health system perspective and followed an activity-based approach to costing. Resource consumption data were collected prospectively from a digital individual database, daily time records, key informant interviews and direct observations. Our cost-effectiveness analysis compared each strategy with the status quo and calculated the average cost-effective ratios (ACERs) for one primary outcome (sample tested) and three secondary outcomes (responder recruited, case detected and asymptomatic case detected).Our results showed that A2, with cost per sample tested at 52,89 EURO, had the lowest ACER for the primary outcome, closely followed by A1 (63,33 EURO). This estimate was much higher for both B1 (243,84 EURO) and B2 (181,06 EURO).A2 (direct testing at household level) proved to be the most cost-effective of the four evaluated strategies and should be considered as an option to strengthen the routine surveillance system in Germany and similar settings.
Keyword(s): COVID-19 ; Cost ; Cost-effectiveness ; Germany ; Surveillance
; Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List ; Current Contents - Social and Behavioral Sciences ; DEAL Springer ; DEAL Springer ; Essential Science Indicators ; IF < 5 ; JCR ; National-Konsortium ; SCOPUS ; Social Sciences Citation Index
|
The record appears in these collections: |
