ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The resources for critical care are limited in many settings, exacerbating the significant morbidity and mortality associated with critical illness. Budget constraints can lead to choices between investing in advanced critical care (e.g. mechanical ventilators in intensive care units) or more basic critical care such as Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC; e.g. vital signs monitoring, oxygen therapy, and intravenous fluids). METHODS: We investigated the cost effectiveness of providing EECC and advanced critical care in Tanzania in comparison with providing 'no critical care' or 'district hospital-level critical care' using coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a tracer condition. We developed an open-source Markov model ( https://github.com/EECCnetwork/POETIC_CEA ) to estimate costs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted, using a provider perspective, a 28-day time horizon, patient outcomes obtained from an elicitation method involving a seven-member expert group, a normative costing study, and published literature. We performed a univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of our results. , RESULTS: EECC is cost effective 94% and 99% of the time when compared with no critical care (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $37 [-$9 to $790] per DALY averted) and district hospital-level critical care (ICER $14 [-$200 to $263] per DALY averted), respectively, relative to the lowest identified estimate of the willingness-to-pay threshold for Tanzania ($101 per DALY averted). Advanced critical care is cost effective 27% and 40% of the time, when compared with the no critical care or district hospital-level critical care scenarios, respectively. CONCLUSION: For settings where there is limited or no critical care delivery, implementation of EECC could be a highly cost-effective investment. It could reduce mortality and morbidity for critically ill COVID-19 patients, and its cost effectiveness falls within the range considered 'highly cost effective'. Further research is needed to explore the potential of EECC to generate even greater benefits and value for money when patients with diagnoses other than COVID-19 are accounted for.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are the cornerstone of infectious disease outbreak response in the absence of effective pharmaceutical interventions. Outbreak strategies often involve combinations of NPIs that may change according to disease prevalence and population response. Little is known with regard to how costly each NPI is to implement. This information is essential to inform policy decisions for outbreak response. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap in existing literature, we conducted a systematic review on outbreak costings and simulation studies related to a number of NPI strategies, including isolating infected individuals, contact tracing and quarantine, and school closures. METHODS: Our search covered the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, studies published between 1990 and 24 March 2020 were included. We included studies containing cost data for our NPIs of interest in pandemic, epidemic, and outbreak response scenarios. RESULTS: We identified 61 relevant studies. There was substantial heterogeneity in the cost components recorded for NPIs in outbreak costing studies. The direct costs of NPIs for which costing studies existed also ranged widely: isolating infected individuals per case: US$141.18 to US$1042.68 (2020 values), tracing and quarantine of contacts per contact: US$40.73 to US$93.59, social distancing: US$33.76 to US$167.92, personal protection and hygiene: US$0.15 to US$895.60. CONCLUSION: While there are gaps and heterogeneity in available cost data, the findings of this review and the collated cost database serve as an important resource for evidence-based decision-making for estimating costs pertaining to NPI implementation in future outbreak response policies.