• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Clin Lab Anal . Cost analysis of coronavirus disease 2019 test strategies using pooled reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction technique

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Clin Lab Anal


. 2022 Apr 6;e24413.
doi: 10.1002/jcla.24413. Online ahead of print.
Cost analysis of coronavirus disease 2019 test strategies using pooled reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction technique


Eun Young Kim[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Juyoung Kim[SUP] 2 3 [/SUP], Heungsup Sung[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Min-Woo Jo[SUP] 2 3 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the testing strategies for COVID-19 (i.e., individual, simple pooling, and matrix pooling) in terms of cost.
Methods: We simulated the total expenditures of each testing strategy for running 10,000 tests. Three parameters were used: positive rate (PR), pool size, and test cost. We compared the total testing costs under two hypothetical scenarios in South Korea. We also simulated country-specific circumstances in India, South Africa, South Korea, the UK, and the USA.
Results: At extreme PRs of 0.01% and 10%, simple pooling was the most economic option and resulted in cost reductions of 98.0% (pool size ≥80) and 36.7% (pool size = 3), respectively. At moderate PRs of 0.1%, 1%, 2%, and 5%, the matrix pooling strategy was the most economic option and resulted in cost reductions of 97.0% (pool size ≥88), 86.1% (pool size = 22), 77.9% (pool size = 14), and 59.2% (pool size = 7), respectively. In both hypothetical scenarios of South Korea, simple pooling costs less than matrix pooling. However, the preferable options for achieving cost savings differed depending on each country's cost per test and PRs.
Conclusions: Both pooling strategies resulted in notable cost reductions compared with individual testing in most scenarios pertinent to real-life situations. The appropriate type of testing strategy should be chosen by considering the PR of COVID-19 in the community and the test cost while using an appropriate pooling size such as five specimens.

Keywords: COVID-19; COVID-19 testing; RT-PCR; costs and cost analysis; pooling test.
 
Back
Top Bottom