Effectiveness and Medicoeconomic Evaluation of Home Monitoring of Patients With Mild COVID-19: Covidom Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Covidom was a telemonitoring solution for home monitoring of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, deployed in March 2020 in the Greater Paris area in France to alleviate the burden on the health care system. The Covidom solution included a free mobile application with daily monitoring questionnaires and a regional control center to quickly handle patient alerts, including dispatching emergency medical services when necessary. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide an overall evaluation of the Covidom solution 18 months after its inception in terms of effectiveness, safety, and cost. METHODS: Our primary outcome was to measure effectiveness using the number of handled alerts, response escalation, and patient-reported medical contacts outside of Covidom. Then, we analyzed the safety of Covidom by assessing its ability to detect clinical worsening, defined as hospitalization or death, and the number of patients with clinical worsening without any preceding alert. We evaluated the cost of Covidom and compared the cost of hospitalization for Covidom and non-Covidom patients with mild COVID-19 cases seen in the emergency departments of the largest network of hospitals in the Greater Paris area (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris). Finally, we reported on user satisfaction. RESULTS: Of the 60,073 patients monitored by Covidom, the regional control center handled 285,496 alerts and dispatched emergency medical services 518 times. Of the 13,204 respondents who responded to either of the follow-up questionnaires, 65.8% (n=8690) reported having sought medical care outside the Covidom solution during their monitoring period. Of the 947 patients who experienced clinical worsening while adhering to daily monitoring, only 35 (3.7%) did not previously trigger alerts (35 were hospitalized, including 1 who died). The average cost of Covidom was €54 (US $1=€0.8614) per patient, and the cost of hospitalization for COVID-19 worsening was significantly lower in Covidom than in non-Covidom patients with mild COVID-19 cases seen in the emergency departments of Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris. The patients who responded to the satisfaction questionnaire had a median rating of 9 (out of 10) for the likelihood of recommending Covidom. CONCLUSIONS: Covidom may have contributed to alleviating the pressure on the health care system in the initial months of the pandemic, although its impact was lower than anticipated, with a substantial number of patients having consulted outside of Covidom. Covidom seems to be safe for home monitoring of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

The cost of mental health: Where do we stand in France?

Mental disorders often begin early in life and constitute five of the top ten causes of disability. Their total cost across Europe is estimated at more than 4% of GDP (more than € 600 billion). The last study investigating the cost of mental disorders in France by our group was based on data from 2007 and yielded an estimated indirect and direct cost of € 109 billions. The objective of this study was thus to provide an overall updated cost of mental health in France ten years later and before the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated the costs related to the direct healthcare and medico-social system, loss of productivity and loss of quality of life. We conducted a literature search to identify direct healthcare, medico-social, indirect (loss of productivity and income compensation) and loss of quality of life during 2018. We included costs related to major psychiatric disorders, including autism and intellectual disability, but excluded the costs related to dementia. Our estimate of the total cost of mental disorders in France, including medical (14%), social (8%), indirect (27%) and loss of quality of life (51%), was € 163 billions in 2018. This total cost includes money spend, forgone earnings and DALYs lost. We found a 50% increase in costs relative to our previous 2007 study. Large-scale cost-effective interventions such as specialized consultations or the development of ambulatory care could help decrease direct healthcare costs related to hospitalization and productivity loss while greatly improving the quality of life of patients.

Divergent COVID-19 vaccine policies: Policy mapping of ten European countries.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the fragmented nature of governmental policy decisions in Europe. However, the extent to which COVID-19 vaccination policies differed between European countries remains unclear. Here, we mapped the COVID-19 vaccination policies that were in effect in January 2022 as well as booster regulations in April 2022 in Austria, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain. METHODS: National public health and health policy experts from these ten European nations developed and completed an electronic questionnaire. The questionnaire included a series of questions that addressed six critical components of vaccine implementation, including (1) authorization, (2) prioritization, (3) procurement and distribution, (4) data collection, (5) administration, and (6) mandate requirements. RESULTS: Our findings revealed significant variations in COVID-19 vaccination policies across Europe. We observed critical differences in COVID-19 vaccine formulations authorized for use, as well as the specific groups that were provided with priority access. We also identified discrepancies in how vaccination-related data were recorded in each country and what vaccination requirements were implemented. CONCLUSION: Each of the ten European nations surveyed in this study reported different COVID-19 vaccination policies. These differences complicated efforts to provide a coordinated pandemic response. These findings might alert policymakers in Europe of the need to coordinate their efforts to avoid fostering divergent and socially disruptive policies.

Implementing Technologies: Assessment of Telemedicine Experiments in the Paris Region: Reasons for Success or Failure of the Evaluations and of the Deployment of the Projects.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is increasingly viewed as a tool to provide a wide range of health services. This article presents policy lessons drawn from the evaluation of telemedicine experiments conducted in the Paris region. METHODS: We used a mixed method design to study telemedicine projects commissioned by the Paris Regional Health Agency between 2013 and 2017. We combined data analysis of the telemedicine projects, review of the protocols, and interviews with stakeholders. RESULTS: We identified the following reasons for disappointing outcomes: the outcome measure was requested too early during the experiments because payers required information for budgetary decisions; and the learning curve, technical problems, diversion of use, insufficient number of inclusions, and a lack of adherence prevented the demonstration of successful outcomes of the projects. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of telemedicine should be undertaken after sufficient uptake to ensure barriers to implementation are overcome, and to obtain the sample size necessary for statistical power and reduce the average cost for one telemedicine request. Randomized controlled trials should be encouraged with appropriate funding and the follow-up period should be extended.

Imaging strategies used in emergency departments for the diagnostic workup of COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency departments (EDs) were on the front line for the diagnostic workup of patients with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave. Chest imaging was the key to rapidly identifying COVID-19 before administering RT-PCR, which was time-consuming. The objective of our study was to compare the costs and organizational benefits of triage strategies in ED during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in five EDs in France, involving 3712 consecutive patients consulting with COVID-like symptoms between 9 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, to assess the cost effectiveness of imaging strategies (chest radiography, chest computed tomography (CT) scan in the presence of respiratory symptoms, systematic ultra-low-dose (ULD) chest CT, and no systematic imaging) on ED length of stay (LOS) in the ED and on hospital costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in LOS. RESULTS: Compared with chest radiography, workup with systematic ULD chest CT was the more cost-effective strategy (average LOS of 6.89 hours; average cost of €3646), allowing for an almost 4-hour decrease in LOS in the ED at a cost increase of €98 per patient. Chest radiography (extendedly dominated) and RT-PCR with no systematic imaging were the least effective strategies, with an average LOS of 10.8 hours. The strategy of chest CT in the presence of respiratory symptoms was more effective than the systematic ULD chest CT strategy, with the former providing a gain of 37 minutes at an extra cost of €718. DISCUSSION: Systematic ULD chest CT for patients with COVID-like symptoms in the ED is a cost-effective strategy and should be considered to improve the management of patients in the ED during the pandemic, given the need to triage patients.

Association between mental disorders and COVID-19 outcomes among inpatients in France: A retrospective nationwide population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders are at-risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. There is limited and heterogeneous national data in hospital settings evaluating the risks associated with any pre-existing mental disorder, and susceptible subgroups. Our study aimed to investigate the association between pre-existing psychiatric disorders and outcomes of adults hospitalised for COVID-19. METHOD: We used data obtained from the French national hospital database linked to the state-level psychiatric registry. The primary outcome was 30-days in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were to compare the length of hospital stay, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission and ICU length. Propensity score matching analysis was used to control for COVID-19 confounding factors between patients with or without mental disorder and stratified by psychiatric subgroups. RESULTS: Among 97 302 adults hospitalised for COVID-19 from March to September 2020, 10 083 (10.3%) had a pre-existing mental disorder, mainly dementia (3581 [35.5%]), mood disorders (1298 [12.9%]), anxiety disorders (995 [9.9%]), psychoactive substance use disorders (960 [9.5%]), and psychotic disorders (866 [8.6%]). In propensity-matched analysis, 30-days in-hospital mortality was increased among those with at least one pre-existing mental disorder (hazard ratio (HR) 1.15, 95% CI 1.08-1.23), psychotic disorder (1.90, 1.24-2.90), and psychoactive substance disorders (1.53, 1.10-2.14). The odds of ICU admission were consistently decreased for patients with any pre-existing mental disorder (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.92) and for those with dementia (0.64, 0.53-0.76). CONCLUSION: Pre-existing mental disorders were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. These findings underscore the important need for adequate care and targeted interventions for at-risk individuals with severe mental illness.

Incidence and characteristics of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment during coronavirus-19 pandemic: A French study.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown on the number and clinical characteristics of patients with retinal detachment (RD) in a French public university eye hospital. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective non-interventional study. Patients consulting at the emergency room (ER) of Quinze-Vingts Hospital (France) for rhegmatogenous RD before and after instauration of the lockdown were reviewed. We compared the characteristics of patients with RD between the containment period (March17th - April27th,2020) and the period preceding the lockdown (February18th - March16th,2020). We compared the number of RD surgeries performed between the first month of lockdown (March17th - April19th,2020) and the corresponding period of 2019. Number of cases, delay between diagnosis and surgery, visual acuity was measured. RESULTS: During the first month of lockdown, 59 RDs were operated on, compared to 107 in the corresponding period in 2019 (-44,8%). Mean time from first symptoms to surgery was significantly higher during the lockdown 12.7 (11.3) days vs 7.6 (7.8) days (p = 0.031) before. During the lockdown, the mean BCVA was lower albeit the difference did not reach statistical significance (1.16 (0.9) during pre-containment vs 1.5 (0.9) during containment; p = 0.09). Reasonsfor delayed consultation were: fear of Covid-19 (31%; p = 0.0001), absence of referral doctor (31%; p = 0.003) and difficulties in getting to public transport (10.3%;p = 0.859). CONCLUSION: Despite maintaining accessto emergency eye care facilitiesin our hospital, the lockdown affected visual health. Should the lockdown be reinstated, we postulate that a better information about eye care access for non-Covid emergencies may attenuate its effect on visual health.

France's response to the Covid-19 pandemic: between a rock and a hard place.

France is one of the European countries hardest hit by the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic brought into light structural weaknesses of the health system, including its governance and decision-making process, but also provoked changes that helped to improve its resilience. We analyse the French experience of Covid-19 in 2020 by critically reviewing major policy measures implemented during the first two waves of the pandemic. France has struggled to find the right balance between the rock of economic and social damage caused by containment measures and the hard alternative of a rapidly spreading pandemic. The response to the first wave, including a full lock-down, was an emergency response that revealed the low level of preparedness for pandemics and the overly hospital-centred provision of health care in France. During the second wave, this response evolved into a more level strategy trying to reconcile health needs in a broader perspective integrating socio-economic considerations, but without fully managing to put in place an effective health strategy. We conclude that to achieve the right balance, France will have to strengthen health system capacity and improve the cooperation between actors at central and local levels with greater participatory decision-making that takes into account local-level realities and the diversity of needs.

The Challenge of Sustainable Access to Telemonitoring Tools for People with Diabetes in Europe: Lessons from COVID-19 and Beyond.

Telemedicine in diabetes care has been evolving over several years, particularly since the advent of cloud-connected technologies for diabetes management, such as glucose monitoring devices, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, that facilitate sharing of glucose data between people with diabetes and their healthcare professionals in near-real time. Extreme social distancing and shielding in place for vulnerable patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has created both the challenge and the opportunity to provide care at a distance on a large scale. Available evidence suggests that glucose control has in fact improved during this period for people with diabetes who are able to use CGM devices for remote glucose monitoring. The development of telemedicine as part of the standard of care in diabetes faces significant challenges in the European context, particularly in terms of providing consistent and effective care at a distance to large populations of patients while using robust systems that can be supported by large regional and national healthcare services. These challenges include a fragmented approach to healthcare technology assessment and reimbursement, lack of eHealth education and literacy, particularly amongst healthcare professionals, lack of data integration, as well as concerns about electronic health records, patient consent and privacy. Here we review the benefits of and challenges to wider application of telemedicine and telemonitoring in the post-pandemic future, with the aim to ensure that the value of these eHealth services is provided to patients, healthcare providers and health systems.

Combined use of a broad-panel respiratory multiplex PCR and procalcitonin to reduce duration of antibiotics exposure in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (MULTI-CAP): a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, individual randomised trial conducted in French intensive care units.

INTRODUCTION: At the time of the worrying emergence and spread of bacterial resistance, reducing the selection pressure by reducing the exposure to antibiotics in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a public health issue. In this context, the combined use of molecular tests and biomarkers for guiding antibiotics discontinuation is attractive. Therefore, we have designed a trial comparing an integrated approach of diagnosis and treatment of severe CAP to usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The multiplex PCR and procalcitonin to reduce duration of antibiotics exposure in patients with severe-CAP (MULTI-CAP) trial is a multicentre (n=20), parallel-group, superiority, open-label, randomised trial. Patients are included if adult admitted to intensive care unit for a CAP. Diagnosis of pneumonia is based on clinical criteria and a newly appeared parenchymal infiltrate. Immunocompromised patients are excluded. Subjects are randomised (1:1 ratio) to either the intervention arm (experimental strategy) or the control arm (usual strategy). In the intervention arm, the microbiological diagnosis combines a respiratory multiplex PCR (mPCR) and conventional microbiological investigations. An algorithm of early antibiotic de-escalation or discontinuation is recommended, based on mPCR results and the procalcitonin value. In the control arm, only conventional microbiological investigations are performed and antibiotics de-escalation remains at the clinician's discretion. The primary endpoint is the number of days alive without any antibiotic from the randomisation to day 28. Based on our hypothesis of 2 days gain in the intervention arm, we aim to enrol a total of 450 patients over a 30-month period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The MULTI-CAP trial is conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, is registered in Clinical Trials and has been approved by the Committee for Protection of Persons and the National French Drug Safety Agency. Written informed consents are obtained from all the patients (or representatives). The results will be disseminated through educational institutions, submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication and presented at medical congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03452826; Pre-results.

Guidance for the Management of Patients with Vascular Disease or Cardiovascular Risk Factors and COVID-19: Position Paper from VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine.

COVID-19 is also manifested with hypercoagulability, pulmonary intravascular coagulation, microangiopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thrombosis. Predisposing risk factors to severe COVID-19 are male sex, underlying cardiovascular disease, or cardiovascular risk factors including noncontrolled diabetes mellitus or arterial hypertension, obesity, and advanced age. The VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine draws attention to patients with vascular disease (VD) and presents an integral strategy for the management of patients with VD or cardiovascular risk factors (VD-CVR) and COVID-19. VAS recommends (1) a COVID-19-oriented primary health care network for patients with VD-CVR for identification of patients with VD-CVR in the community and patients' education for disease symptoms, use of eHealth technology, adherence to the antithrombotic and vascular regulating treatments, and (2) close medical follow-up for efficacious control of VD progression and prompt application of physical and social distancing measures in case of new epidemic waves. For patients with VD-CVR who receive home treatment for COVID-19, VAS recommends assessment for (1) disease worsening risk and prioritized hospitalization of those at high risk and (2) VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for those at high risk. For hospitalized patients with VD-CVR and COVID-19, VAS recommends (1) routine thromboprophylaxis with weight-adjusted intermediate doses of LMWH (unless contraindication); (2) LMWH as the drug of choice over unfractionated heparin or direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of VTE or hypercoagulability; (3) careful evaluation of the risk for disease worsening and prompt application of targeted antiviral or convalescence treatments; (4) monitoring of D-dimer for optimization of the antithrombotic treatment; and (5) evaluation of the risk of VTE before hospital discharge using the IMPROVE-D-dimer score and prolonged post-discharge thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or LMWH.