Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cost-utility model demonstrates rapid antigen testing is cost-effective in homeless shelters, indicating routine screening remains valuable even under high vaccination coverage.
Introduction: COVID-19 surveillance in congregate settings is important to mitigating disease, but the health and economic impact of testing remains unclear. Methods: The authors developed a Markov model to project the cost-utility of COVID-19 testing strategies in homeless shelters from the healthcare payer and societal perspective over 1 year. Model inputs utilized data from residents aged ≥18 years across 23 Seattle shelters from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. No in-shelter surveillance was compared with scenarios of 2 COVID-19 testing strategies implemented monthly: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and rapid antigen testing; scenarios in which only PCR testing was available were also evaluated. The primary health outcome was quality-adjusted life years. Interventions were considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was ≤$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year and dominant if they saved costs and provided health effects. Results: When assuming the availability of both antigen and PCR tests, most rapid antigen testing strategies were cost-effective, whereas PCR testing was dominated by antigen testing. Compared with no in-shelter surveillance, antigen testing increased mean quality-adjusted life years by 0.0009 (0.03% infections averted) at an incremental cost of $97/resident from the healthcare perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio=$112,352/quality-adjusted life year gained) and $8/resident from the societal perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio=$9,627/quality-adjusted life year gained) at 75% vaccination coverage. PCR testing was not cost-effective when antigen testing was available but was cost-effective compared with no surveillance at low vaccination coverage levels (<30% coverage from the healthcare perspective and ≤48% coverage from the societal perspective). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that antigen testing was cost-effective in 62% and 86% of simulations from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. Conclusions: Modeled findings show that COVID-19 testing in shelters can be a cost-effective pandemic response. Antigen testing remained cost-effective at high vaccination levels, whereas PCR testing was most effective at low vaccination levels if antigen testing was not available.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cox et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: