Value of Information Analysis in the Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Diagnostic Technologies for Respiratory Viral Infections
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20535/ibb.2026.10.1.358108Keywords:
viral respiratory infections, laboratory diagnostics, polymerase chain reaction, rapid diagnostic tests, cost-utility analysis, decision tree, modelling, value of informationAbstract
Background. Respiratory infections remain a major global health burden with significant economic impact. The di-versity of viral pathogens and variability in diagnostic approaches complicate etiological verification in laboratory practice. As diagnostic technologies evolve, there is a growing need for economically justified approaches that integrate analytical performance, operational characteristics, and costs. Value of Information (VOI) analysis provides a formal framework for evaluating the impact of uncertainty on decision-making.
Objective. To develop and apply a methodology for assessing the cost-utility and value of information of diagnostic technologies for viral respiratory infections from a laboratory perspective.
Methods. The study compared immunochromatographic rapid tests and PCR-based diagnostics for viral infections. Diagnostic utility was quantified using expert elicitation based on four operational criteria: automation, turnaround time, reproducibility, and accessibility. A multi-criteria decision-tree model was constructed, incorporating sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic spectrum, and cost parameters. Uncertainty was modeled using beta and gamma distributions. The framework enabled estimation of expected utility, Net Monetary Benefit (NMB), Expected Value of Perfect Infor-mation (EVPI), and Expected Value of Sample Information (EVSI).
Results. A multi-criteria cost-utility methodology for evaluating etiological diagnostic technologies was developed and applied. Within the defined model, PCR-based diagnostics demonstrated higher expected utility, primarily due to their broader diagnostic spectrum and higher analytical sensitivity. In probabilistic simulations (10,000 iterations), PCR showed an average positive Net Monetary Benefit of approximately $854 per clinical sample compared to rapid tests. VOI analysis indicated low decision uncertainty, with EVPI estimated at $0.25 per patient. EVPPI for the diagnostic spectrum of PCR was negligible, and EVSI reached a maximum of $2.69 at a sample size of 40, suggesting limited addi-tional value of further data collection under current assumptions.
Conclusions. The integration of multi-criteria cost-utility modelling with VOI analysis provides a consistent frame-work for evaluating diagnostic technologies in laboratory medicine. Within the assumptions of the model, PCR-based diagnostics demonstrated higher economic utility compared to rapid tests. However, the results should be interpreted within the defined laboratory perspective and modeling assumptions, including limitations related to the diagnostic spectrum of rapid tests and the absence of downstream clinical outcomes. The proposed approach supports evidence-based and economically justified selection of diagnostic technologies under uncertainty.
References
GBD 2019 LRI Collaborators. Age-sex differences in the global burden of lower respiratory infections and risk factors, 1990–2019: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(11):1626–1647. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00510-2
S van der Pol , Garcia PR, Postma MJ, Villar FA, van Asselt ADI. Economic analyses of respiratory tract infection diagnostics: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(12):1411–1427. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01054-1
Brigadoi G, Gastaldi A, Moi M, et al. Point-of-care and rapid tests for the etiological diagnosis of respiratory tract infections in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(9):1192. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11091192
Dick K, Schneider J. Economic evaluation of FebriDx®: a novel rapid, point-of-care test for differentiation of viral versus bacterial acute respiratory infection in the United States. J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2021;8(2):56–62. DOI: 10.36469/001c.27753
Abbasi M, Tvakoli N, Bagheri Faradonbeh S, Bakhshayeshi A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of rapid test compared to polymerase chain reac-tion (PCR) in patients with acute respiratory syndrome. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2022;36:36. DOI: 10.47176/mjiri.36.36
Rahmanzadeh F, Malekpour N, Faramarzi A, Yusefzadeh H. Cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies for COVID-19 in Iran. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):861. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09868-9
Majeed MN, Iqbal A, Murtaza N, Herrera-Zúñiga LD, Siddique S, Raza M, Hussain M, Sajid M. Designing a Multi-Epitope Vaccine Candidate to MERS-CoV: An in silico Approach. Innov Biosyst Bioeng. 2024;8(3):3–17. DOI: 10.20535/ibb.2024.8.3.296662
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press; 2006.
Abel L, Shinkins B, Smith A, et al. Early economic evaluation of diagnostic technologies: experiences of the NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives. Med Decis Making. 2019;39(7):857–866. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19866415
Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1055–1068. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624110-00003
Bleuler E. Das autistisch–undisziplinierte Denken in der Medizin und seine Uberwindung. Springer, Berlin; 1919. p. 207.
Miller W, Robinson LA, Lawrence RS. Valuing health for regulatory cost-effectiveness analysis. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006. DOI: 10.17226/11534
Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR. Improving diagnosis in health care. In: Technology and tools in the diagnostic process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015. p. 217–262. DOI: 10.17226/21794
Leeflang MM, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM. Variation of a test's sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence. CMAJ. 2013;185(11):E537–E544. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.121286
Werner M, Brooks SH, Wette R. Strategy for cost-effective laboratory testing. Human Pathology. 1973;4(1):17–30. DOI: 10.1016/s0046-8177(73)80043-7
Garattini L, Koleva D, Casadei G. Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: funding sources and outcomes. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2010;26(3):330–333. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000322
Roberts MS, Smith K. Decision Modeling. In: Arnold RJG, editor. Pharmacoeconomics: From theory to practice. Second edition. CRC Press; 2016. 2:21–43.
Caliendo AM, Gilbert DN, Ginocchio CC, Hanson KE, May L, Quinn TC, et al. Better tests, better care: Improved diagnostics for infectious diseases. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2013;57(3):S139–S170. DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit578
Public Health Center of Ukraine. Incidence of influenza and acute respiratory viral infections in Ukraine [Internet]. Kyiv: PHC; [cited 2025 May 30]. Available from: https://phc.org.ua/kontrol-zakhvoryuvan/inshi-infekciyni-zakhvoryuvannya/zakhvoryuvanist-na-grip-ta-grvi-v-ukraini
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. FTD Respiratory Assays: Syndromic Solutions for Respiratory Infections. Berkeley (CA): Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.; 2020. Order No. 65-20-14522-01-76.
Romero Gómez MP, Bloise Sánchez I, Gómez Arroyo B, González Donapetry P, Cendejas Bueno E, García Rodríguez J. Rapid antigen test for adenovirus in children: Age and onset of symptoms are important. Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (English Edition). 2023;41(10):617–620. DOI: 10.1016/j.eimce.2022.09.015
Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Medical Decision Making. 1991;11(2):88–94. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9101100203
Boelaert M, Lynen L, Desjeux P, Van der Stuyft P. Cost–effectiveness of competing diagnostic–therapeutic strategies for visceral leishmani-asis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 1999;77:667–674. PMID: 10516788
Shillcutt S, Morel C, Goodman C, Coleman P, Bell D, Whitty CJM, et al. Cost–effectiveness of malaria diagnostic methods in sub–Saharan Af-rica in an era of combination therapy. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2008;86(2):101–110. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.07.042259
Molicotti P, Bua A, Zanetti S. Cost-effectiveness in the diagnosis of tuberculosis: choices in developing countries. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2014;8(1):24–38. DOI: 10.3855/jidc.3295
Leith CP. Cost-effective flow cytometry testing strategies. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine. 2017;37(4):915–929. DOI: 10.1016/j.cll.2017.07.012
Komar, A., Kozerecka, O., Besarab, O., & Galkin, A. (2019). Development and Validation of a Highly Informative Immuno-Enzymatic Analy-sis for the Determination of Free Prostat-Specific Antigen. Innovative Biosystems and Bioengineering, 3(4), 220–231. DOI: 10.20535/ibb.2019.3.4.185877
Mahony JB, Blackhouse G, Babwah J, Smieja M, Buracond S, Chong S, et al. Cost analysis of multiplex PCR testing for diagnosing respiratory virus infections. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2009;47(9):2812–2817. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00556-09
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The ownership of copyright remains with the Authors.
Authors may use their own material in other publications provided that the Journal is acknowledged as the original place of publication and National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute” as the Publisher.
Authors are reminded that it is their responsibility to comply with copyright laws. It is essential to ensure that no part of the text or illustrations have appeared or are due to appear in other publications, without prior permission from the copyright holder.
IBB articles are published under Creative Commons licence:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under CC BY 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
