% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Nguyen:210401,
      author       = {H. T. Nguyen and C. M. Denkinger and S. Brenner and L.
                      Koeppel and L. Brugnara and R. Burk and M. Knop$^*$ and T.
                      Bärnighausen and A. Deckert and M. De Allegri},
      title        = {{C}ost and cost-effectiveness of four different
                      {SARS}-{C}o{V}-2 active surveillance strategies: evidence
                      from a randomised control trial in {G}ermany.},
      journal      = {The European journal of health economics},
      volume       = {24},
      number       = {9},
      issn         = {1618-7598},
      address      = {Heidelberg},
      publisher    = {Springer},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2023-00125},
      pages        = {1545-1559},
      year         = {2023},
      note         = {2023 Dec;24(9):1545-1559},
      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.},
      keywords     = {COVID-19 (Other) / Cost (Other) / Cost-effectiveness
                      (Other) / Germany (Other) / Surveillance (Other)},
      cin          = {A260},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)A260-20160331},
      pnm          = {311 - Zellbiologie und Tumorbiologie (POF4-311)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-311},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:36656403},
      doi          = {10.1007/s10198-022-01561-8},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/210401},
}