Economic comparison of enzyme immunoassay and virus isolation procedures for surveillance of arboviruses in mosquito populations

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis of an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for the surveillance of arboviruses was conducted. The EIA was compared with conventional virus isolation and serologic identification procedures (virus isolation procedures; VIP). Under most circumstances, EIA was more cost-effective than VIP. Costs for processing mosquito pools by VIP increased with the number of viruses included in the surveillance program and with the prevalence rate of each virus. In contrast to VIP, the prevalence rate did not affect costs for processing pools by EIA. In general, EIA was the most cost-effective procedure, followed by cell culture and mouse bioassays. In a 5-year cost-effectiveness analysis of a model surveillance program in which EIA and cell culture bioassays were used, the EIA again proved to be the most cost-effective assay procedure under most circumstances.