Benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 self-tests from a consumer's perspective

Evaluating the Usefulness of Population-Wide COVID-19 Testing in the Omicron Era: Insights from a German Model

BACKGROUND

The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, which has become dominant worldwide since late 2021, presents a unique challenge due to its high rate of asymptomatic transmission. This study evaluates the efficacy and value of population-wide testing, including self-testing, in the context of COVID-19, particularly under the Omicron variant, using data from Germany.

METHODS

A decision-analytical model and secondary data was used for assessing the impact of systematic screening and testing for COVID-19. Various scenarios were taken into consideration including seasonal patterns of COVID-19 transmission and the potential for annual waves. The model assessed the clinical benefits of testing against the backdrop of vaccine effectiveness, transmission rates, and the potential to prevent severe clinical events, including death, ICU admission, and long COVID syndrome.

RESULTS

The study found that the value of mass testing and self-testing for private use was highly contingent on the transmission rate and the scenario of COVID-19 waves (seasonal vs. continuous). For winter waves, a very high incidence rate was required to justify testing, while for continuous waves, testing could be valuable for those in contact with individuals in their last decade of life. The analysis highlighted the limitations of mass testing when community transmission rates were low and the potential value of testing in high-risk contacts or amidst new outbreaks.

DISCUSSION

The findings suggest that the resumption of testing during winter waves is unlikely to provide significant clinical benefits given the current understanding of Omicron's transmission and immunity waning. This study underscores the need for a nuanced approach to COVID-19 testing policies, considering both the epidemiological context and the practical implications of testing strategies.

Predictive models for health outcomes due to SARS-CoV-2, including the effect of vaccination: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The interaction between modelers and policymakers is becoming more common due to the increase in computing speed seen in recent decades. The recent pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus was no exception. Thus, this study aims to identify and assess epidemiological mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 applied to real-world data, including immunization for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODOLOGY

PubMed, JSTOR, medRxiv, LILACS, EconLit, and other databases were searched for studies employing epidemiological mathematical models of SARS-CoV-2 applied to real-world data. We summarized the information qualitatively, and each article included was assessed for bias risk using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PROBAST checklist tool. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022344542.

FINDINGS

In total, 5646 articles were retrieved, of which 411 were included. Most of the information was published in 2021. The countries with the highest number of studies were the United States, Canada, China, and the United Kingdom; no studies were found in low-income countries. The SEIR model (susceptible, exposed, infectious, and recovered) was the most frequently used approach, followed by agent-based modeling. Moreover, the most commonly used software were R, Matlab, and Python, with the most recurring health outcomes being death and recovery. According to the JBI assessment, 61.4% of articles were considered to have a low risk of bias.

INTERPRETATION

The utilization of mathematical models increased following the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Stakeholders have begun to incorporate these analytical tools more extensively into public policy, enabling the construction of various scenarios for public health. This contribution adds value to informed decision-making. Therefore, understanding their advancements, strengths, and limitations is essential.

Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations

Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables. Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation. Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].

Knowledge about, acceptance of and willingness to use over-the-counter COVID-19 self-testing kits

Objectives

Early investments in new diagnostic technologies that allow for rapid and decentralized testing were critical in reducing SARS-CoV-2’s detrimental health and economic effects. This study evaluates public knowledge about, acceptance of and willingness to use COVID-19 self-testing kits.

Methods

An online descriptive cross-sectional questionnaire was used in this study. The final study population included all contacted national and resident adults, age 18 and over, who were willing to engage in the study. The survey was divided according to participants’ demographic information and 11 questions assessed the respondents’ understanding of and willingness to use COVID-19 self-testing kits. The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS version 24. Multivariate linear regression models were used to identify the factors influencing respondents’ knowledge of and attitudes toward the acceptability of self-testing kits for COVID-19 and their willingness to use these kits.

Key findings

A total of 876 respondents participated in the study and completed the whole questionnaire. The average knowledge score on the acceptability of and willingness to use self-testing kits for COVID-19 was 70.2%, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) [69.1%, 71.4%]. Participants who were postgraduate, female and vaccinated against COVID-19, as well as employees and older participants, were jointly highly associated with higher levels of knowledge about, acceptance of and willingness to use self-testing kits for COVID-19. Moreover, participants who had been infected with COVID-19, were vaccinated against COVID-19 or were female, employees, older, Western or Arabic were jointly highly associated with positive attitudes about the acceptability of and willingness to use self-testing kits for COVID-19.

Conclusions

The majority of the respondents have acceptable levels of knowledge about, acceptance of and willingness to use self-testing kits for COVID-19. Nonetheless, future studies should consider the issues of pre- and post-test counselling, false negative results and the sale of unregulated testing kits. Additional information should be communicated so that people can make informed decisions and be protected from possible abuse of COVID-19 self-testing kits when they become available in pharmacies.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies

Background

We aimed to quantitatively summarise the health economic evaluation evidence of prevention and control programs addressing COVID-19 globally.

Methods

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the economic and health benefit of interventions for COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library of economic evaluation from December 31, 2019, to March 22, 2022, to identify relevant literature. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models to estimate pooled incremental net benefit (INB). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021267475.

Results

Of 16 860 studies identified, 85 articles were included in the systematic review, and 25 articles (10 studies about non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs), five studies about vaccinations and 10 studies about treatments) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled INB of NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments were $1378.10 (95% CI = $1079.62, $1676.59), $254.80 (95% CI = $169.84, $339.77) and $4115.11 (95% CI = $1631.09, $6599.14), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Conclusions

NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments are all cost-effective in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, evidence was mostly from high-income and middle-income countries. Further studies from lower-income countries are needed.