Economic evaluation of programs against COVID-19: A systematic review

Highlights

• Screening and social distance are cost-effective alternatives to prevention COVID-19 in long-time horizon.

• Personal protective equipment was more cost-effective in the short-time than non-intervention.

• The evidence of cost-effectiveness of programs against COVID-19 was insufficient and too heterogeneous to draw any decisive conclusion.

Abstract

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a public health emergency and raised global concerns in about 213 countries without vaccines and with limited medical capacity to treat the disease. The COVID-19 has prompted an urgent search for effective interventions, and there is little information about the money value of treatments. The present study aimed to summarize economic evaluation evidence of preventing strategies, programs, and treatments of COVID-19.

Material and methods

We searched Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and specialized databases of economic evaluation from December 2019 to July 2020 to identify relevant literature to economic evaluation of programs against COVID-19. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from full-text articles, and did their quality assessment by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Then, quality synthesis of results was done.

Results

Twenty-six studies of economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. The CHEERS scores for most studies (n = 9) were 85 or higher (excellent quality). Eight studies scored 70 to 85 (good quality), eight studies scored 55 to 70 (average quality), and one study < %55 (poor quality). The decision-analytic modeling was applied to twenty-three studies (88%) to evaluate their services. Most studies utilized the SIR model for outcomes. In studies with long-time horizons, social distancing was more cost-effective than quarantine, non-intervention, and herd immunity. Personal protective equipment was more cost-effective in the short-term than non-intervention. Screening tests were cost-effective in all studies.

Conclusion

The results suggested screening tests and social distancing to be cost-effective alternatives in preventing and controlling COVID-19 on a long-time horizon. However, evidence is still insufficient and too heterogeneous to allow any definite conclusions regarding costs of interventions. Further research as are required in the future.