Department of Health Policy, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Health Management and Economics, Faculty of Health, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran.
Int J Surg. 2022 Sep;105:106820. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106820. Epub 2022 Aug 17.
Corona 2 virus (SARS-CoV-2) is known as the causative agent of COVID-19 disease; the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it an epidemic on March 11, 2020. The Joint Guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO including social distancing, the use of face masks, emphasis on hand washing, quarantine, and using diagnosis tests have been used widely, but the value of diagnostic interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We compared the economic evaluation of different laboratory diagnostic interventions with each other and also with implementing the conservative CDC & WHO guidelines.
Electronic searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, NHSEED, NHS Health Technology assessment (CRD), and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases. Related articles were reviewed from January 2020 to the end of November 2021.
Out of 1791 initial studies, 13 articles had the inclusion criteria. According to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, ten studies were of excellent quality, and the remaining two studies were of very good quality. Most studies were cost-effectiveness analysis studies. The entered studies had different time horizons. Diagnostic tests reviewed in the studies included real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, immunoglobulin G (IgG) & Antigen, point of care tests. Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing improves the quality of life and survival for patients with infected Covid-19 based on its greater effectiveness compared to standard protection protocols, due to the high cost of this intervention, it has been considered a cost-effective method in some countries.
Since most studies have been conducted in developed countries, it unquestionably does not make sense to extend these results to low-income and developing countries. Therefore further studies are required in low-income and developing countries to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laboratory-based diagnostic methods (RT-PCR) of covid-19 in variable prevalence of infectious cases.
科罗娜 2 病毒（SARS-CoV-2）被认为是 COVID-19 疾病的病原体；世界卫生组织（WHO）于 2020 年 3 月 11 日宣布其为流行病。疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）和世界卫生组织（WHO）联合发布的指南包括保持社交距离、使用口罩、强调洗手、隔离和使用诊断检测，已被广泛使用，但诊断干预措施防止 SARS-CoV-2 传播的价值尚不清楚。我们比较了不同实验室诊断干预措施的经济评估结果，并与实施保守的 CDC 和 WHO 指南的结果进行了比较。
在 PubMed、Embase、Science Direct、Scopus、Cochrane Library、Web of Knowledge、NHSEED、NHS 健康技术评估（CRD）和成本效益分析登记数据库中进行了电子检索。从 2020 年 1 月到 2021 年 11 月底，对相关文章进行了综述。
在 1791 篇初始研究中，有 13 篇符合纳入标准。根据健康经济评估报告标准（CHEERS）清单，其中 10 项研究质量为优，其余 2 项研究质量为良。大多数研究为成本效益分析研究。所纳入的研究具有不同的时间范围。研究中审查的诊断检测包括实时聚合酶链反应（RT-PCR）检测、免疫球蛋白 G（IgG）和抗原、即时检测。尽管聚合酶链反应（PCR）检测由于其更高的有效性，相对于标准保护方案提高了感染 COVID-19 患者的生活质量和生存率，但由于这种干预措施的高成本，在一些国家被认为是一种具有成本效益的方法。
由于大多数研究都是在发达国家进行的，因此将这些结果推广到低收入和发展中国家是毫无意义的。因此，需要在低收入和发展中国家进一步研究，以评估基于实验室的 COVID-19 诊断方法（RT-PCR）在不同传染性病例患病率下的成本效益。
