Mark Drakesmith1, Brendan Collins2,3, Angela Jones4, Kelechi Nnoaham4, Daniel Rhys Thomas5,6. 1. Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Public Health Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK. mark.drakesmith@wales.nhs.uk. 2. Health and Social Services Group, Welsh Government, Cardiff, Wales, UK. 3. Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, UK. 4. Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, Abercynon, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Wales, UK. 5. Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Public Health Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK. 6. School of Health Sciences, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mass community testing for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow devices (LFDs) aims to reduce prevalence in the community. However its effectiveness as a public heath intervention is disputed. METHOD: Data from a mass testing pilot in the Borough of Merthyr Tydfil in late 2020 was used to model cases, hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths prevented. Further economic analysis with a healthcare perspective assessed cost-effectiveness in terms of healthcare costs avoided and QALYs gained. RESULTS: An initial conservative estimate of 360 (95% CI: 311-418) cases were prevented by the mass testing, representing a would-be reduction of 11% of all cases diagnosed in Merthyr Tydfil residents during the same period. Modelling healthcare burden estimates that 24 (16-36) hospitalizations, 5 (3-6) ICU admissions and 15 (11-20) deaths were prevented, representing 6.37%, 11.1% and 8.2%, respectively of the actual counts during the same period. A less conservative, best-case scenario predicts 2333 (1764-3115) cases prevented, representing 80% reduction in would-be cases. Cost -effectiveness analysis indicates 108 (80-143) QALYs gained, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,143 (£860-£4,175) per QALY gained and net monetary benefit of £6.2 m (£4.5 m-£8.4 m). In the best-case scenario, this increases to £15.9 m (£12.3 m-£20.5 m). CONCLUSIONS: A non-negligible number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths were prevented by the mass testing pilot. Considering QALYs gained and healthcare costs avoided, the pilot was cost-effective. These findings suggest mass testing with LFDs in areas of high prevalence (> 2%) is likely to provide significant public health benefit. It is not yet clear whether similar benefits will be obtained in low prevalence settings or with vaccination rollout.
BACKGROUND: Mass community testing for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow devices (LFDs) aims to reduce prevalence in the community. However its effectiveness as a public heath intervention is disputed. METHOD: Data from a mass testing pilot in the Borough of Merthyr Tydfil in late 2020 was used to model cases, hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths prevented. Further economic analysis with a healthcare perspective assessed cost-effectiveness in terms of healthcare costs avoided and QALYs gained. RESULTS: An initial conservative estimate of 360 (95% CI: 311-418) cases were prevented by the mass testing, representing a would-be reduction of 11% of all cases diagnosed in Merthyr Tydfil residents during the same period. Modelling healthcare burden estimates that 24 (16-36) hospitalizations, 5 (3-6) ICU admissions and 15 (11-20) deaths were prevented, representing 6.37%, 11.1% and 8.2%, respectively of the actual counts during the same period. A less conservative, best-case scenario predicts 2333 (1764-3115) cases prevented, representing 80% reduction in would-be cases. Cost -effectiveness analysis indicates 108 (80-143) QALYs gained, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,143 (£860-£4,175) per QALY gained and net monetary benefit of £6.2 m (£4.5 m-£8.4 m). In the best-case scenario, this increases to £15.9 m (£12.3 m-£20.5 m). CONCLUSIONS: A non-negligible number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths were prevented by the mass testing pilot. Considering QALYs gained and healthcare costs avoided, the pilot was cost-effective. These findings suggest mass testing with LFDs in areas of high prevalence (> 2%) is likely to provide significant public health benefit. It is not yet clear whether similar benefits will be obtained in low prevalence settings or with vaccination rollout.
Authors: Jack Ferguson; Steven Dunn; Angus Best; Jeremy Mirza; Benita Percival; Megan Mayhew; Oliver Megram; Fiona Ashford; Thomas White; Emma Moles-Garcia; Liam Crawford; Tim Plant; Andrew Bosworth; Michael Kidd; Alex Richter; Jonathan Deeks; Alan McNally Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Caroline Schaefer; Arthi Chandran; Meghan Hufstader; Rebecca Baik; Michael McNett; Don Goldenberg; Robert Gerwin; Gergana Zlateva Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2011-08-22 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Richard Cookson; Andrew J Mirelman; Susan Griffin; Miqdad Asaria; Bryony Dawkins; Ole Frithjof Norheim; Stéphane Verguet; Anthony J Culyer Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Conor McAloon; Áine Collins; Kevin Hunt; Ann Barber; Andrew W Byrne; Francis Butler; Miriam Casey; John Griffin; Elizabeth Lane; David McEvoy; Patrick Wall; Martin Green; Luke O'Grady; Simon J More Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kieran A Walsh; Natasha Broderick; Susan Ahern; Christopher G Fawsitt; Katie M O'Brien; Marie Carrigan; Patricia Harrington; Michelle O'Neill; Susan M Smith; Susan Spillane; Conor Teljeur; Máirín Ryan Journal: Rev Med Virol Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 11.043