Cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 test, trace and isolate program in Colombia

Ruiz, Yenny Guzmán; Vecino-Ortiz, Andrés I.; Guzman-Tordecilla, Nicolás; Peñaloza-Quintero, Rolando Enrique; Fernández-Niño, Julián Alfredo; Rojas-Botero, Maylen Liseth; Gómez, Francisco; Sullivan, Sean D.; Trujillo, Antonio J.

doi:10.1016/j.lana.2021.100109

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contact tracing is a widely proven non-pharmacological strategy that could dramatically reduce the pandemic spread when performed appropriately 2 28 29. In fact, this strategy has been shown to reduce mortality by between 48% and 67%6 30 31 and has proven to be cost-effective in settings such as Colombia and Latin America 31. Although digital technologies are an appealing way to enact contact-tracing strategies, limited resources in connectivity and ethical concerns place traditional contact tracing as a viable, effective strategy to be used more widely, especially in low-income and middle-income settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in close contacts of adults at high risk of infection due to occupation: results from the contact tracing strategy of the CoVIDA epidemiological surveillance study in Bogotá, Colombia, in 2020–2021

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo estimate the risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in close contacts of adults at high risk of infection due to occupation, participants of the CoVIDA study, in Bogotá D.C., Colombia.SettingThe CoVIDA study was the largest COVID-19 intensified sentinel epidemiological surveillance study in Colombia thus far, performing over 60 000 RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study implemented a contact tracing strategy (via telephone call) to support traditional surveillance actions performed by the local health authority.ParticipantsClose contacts of participants from the CoVIDA study.Primary and secondary outcome measuresSARS-CoV-2 testing results were obtained (RT-PCR with CoVIDA or self-reported results). The secondary attack rate (SAR) was calculated using contacts and primary cases features.ResultsThe CoVIDA study performed 1257 contact tracing procedures on primary cases. A total of 5551 close contacts were identified and 1050 secondary cases (21.1%) were found. The highest SAR was found in close contacts: (1) who were spouses (SAR=32.7%; 95% CI 29.1% to 36.4%), (2) of informally employed or unemployed primary cases (SAR=29.1%; 95% CI 25.5% to 32.8%), (3) of symptomatic primary cases (SAR of 25.9%; 95% CI 24.0% to 27.9%) and (4) living in households with more than three people (SAR=22.2%; 95% CI 20.7% to 23.8%). The spouses (OR 3.85; 95% CI 2.60 to 5.70), relatives (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.70) and close contacts of a symptomatic primary case (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.77) had an increased risk of being secondary cases compared with non-relatives and close contacts of an asymptomatic index case, respectively.ConclusionsContact tracing strategies must focus on households with socioeconomic vulnerabilities to guarantee isolation and testing to stop the spread of the disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in close contacts of adults at high risk of infection due to occupation: results from the contact tracing strategy of the CoVIDA epidemiological surveillance study in Bogotá, Colombia, in 2020–2021

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mass testing with rapid surveillance tests coupled with strict but relatively short isolation of confirmed cases can be a cost-effective strategy for controlling COVID-19 transmission [ 21 ]. Another study conducted in Colombia, including representatives from upper-middle-income countries, assessed the cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 test, trace, and isolate program, including program costs of time-to-intervention, health services utilization, hospitalization, and mortality rates [ 36 ]. Implementation of the cost-effective mass surveillance of COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries can have challenges and opportunities, and the costs will depend on factors such as resource mobilization and local capacity building.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Evaluation of COVID-19 Screening Tests and Surveillance Strategies in Low-Income, Middle-Income, and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Purba,

Rosyid,

Handayani

et al. 2024

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Economic evaluation of the testing strategies to control transmission and monitor the severity of COVID-19 after the pandemic is essential. This study aimed to review the economic evaluation of COVID-19 tests and to construct a model with outcomes in terms of cost and test acceptability for surveillance in the post-pandemic period in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. Material/Methods We performed the systematic review following PRISMA guidelines through MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We included the relevant studies that reported the economic evaluation of COVID-19 tests for surveillance. Also, we input current probability, sensitivity, and specificity for COVID-19 surveillance in the post-pandemic period. Results A total of 104 articles met the eligibility criteria, and 8 articles were reviewed and assessed for quality. The specificity and sensitivity of COVID-19 screening tests were reported as 80% to 90% and 40% to 90%, respectively. The target population presented a mortality rate between 0.2% and 19.2% in the post-pandemic period. The implementation model of COVID-19 screening tests for surveillance with a cost mean for molecular and antigen tests was US$ 46.64 (min–max US $0.25–$105.39) and US $6.15 (min–max US $2–$10), respectively. Conclusions For the allocation budget for the COVID-19 surveillance test, it is essential to consider the incidence and mortality of the post-pandemic period in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. A robust method to evaluate outcomes is needed to prevent increasing COVID-19 incidents earlier.

show abstract

“…A Markov model (Figure A) was constructed with eight mutually exclusive health states based on: i) Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) structure which has been used in monitoring and predicting the spread of COVID-19 [39], and ii) Vaccinated states of partial (dose 1) or full vaccination (dose 2) depending on the vaccine coverage and breakthrough infections. The ‘infected states’ (infected, infected post dose 1, infected post dose 2) of the Markov model were linked with a Decision tree (Figure B) for transition probabilities of symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, and sequelae such as hospitalization, receiving intensive care (ICU) and/or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Health Impact of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) in the first year of rollout in the United States

Fusco

Marczell²,

Deger

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: As the body of evidence on COVID-19 and post-vaccination outcomes continues to expand, this analysis sought to evaluate the public health impact of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, BNT162b2, during the first year of its rollout in the US. Methods: A combined Markov decision tree model compared clinical and economic outcomes of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2) versus no vaccination in individuals aged ≥12 years. Age-stratified epidemiological, clinical, economic, and humanistic parameters were derived from existing data and published literature. Scenario analysis explored the impact of using lower and upper bounds of parameters on the results. The health benefits were estimated as the number of COVID-19 symptomatic cases, hospitalizations and deaths averted, and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) saved. The economic benefits were estimated as the amount of healthcare and societal cost savings associated with the vaccine-preventable health outcomes. Results: It was estimated that, in 2021, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2) contributed to averting almost 9 million symptomatic cases, close to 700,000 hospitalizations, and over 110,000 deaths, resulting in an estimated $30.4 billion direct healthcare cost savings, $43.7 billion indirect cost savings related to productivity loss, as well as discounted gains of 1.1 million QALYs. Scenario analyses showed that these results were robust; the use of alternative plausible ranges of parameters did not change the interpretation of the findings. Conclusions: The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2) contributed to generate substantial public health impact and vaccine-preventable cost savings in the first year of its rollout in the US. The vaccine was estimated to prevent millions of COVID-19 symptomatic cases and thousands of hospitalizations and deaths, and these averted outcomes translated into cost-savings in the billions of US dollars and thousands of QALYs saved. As only direct impacts of vaccination were considered, these estimates may be conservative.

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 test, trace and isolate program in Colombia

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in close contacts of adults at high risk of infection due to occupation: results from the contact tracing strategy of the CoVIDA epidemiological surveillance study in Bogotá, Colombia, in 2020–2021

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in close contacts of adults at high risk of infection due to occupation: results from the contact tracing strategy of the CoVIDA epidemiological surveillance study in Bogotá, Colombia, in 2020–2021

Economic Evaluation of COVID-19 Screening Tests and Surveillance Strategies in Low-Income, Middle-Income, and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Public Health Impact of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) in the first year of rollout in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About