Reducing the basic reproduction number of COVID-19: a model simulation focused on QALYs, hospitalisation, productivity costs and optimal (soft) lockdown.

Even if public health interventions are successful at reducing the spread of COVID-19, there is no guarantee that they will bring net benefits to the society because of the dynamic nature of the pandemic, e.g., the risk of a second outbreak if those interventions are stopped too early, and the costs of a continued lockdown. In this analysis, a discrete-time dynamic model is used to simulate the effect of reducing the effective reproduction number, driven by lockdowns ordered in March 2020 in four European countries (UK, France, Italy and Spain), on QALYs and hospitalisation costs. These benefits are valued in monetary terms (€30,000 per QALY assumed) and compared to productivity costs due to reduced economic activity during the lockdown. An analysis of the optimal duration of lockdown is performed where a net benefit is maximised. The switch to a soft lockdown is analysed and compared to a continued lockdown or no intervention. Results vary for two assumptions about hospital capacity of the health system: (a) under unlimited capacity, average benefit ranges from 8.21 to 14.21% of annual GDP, for UK and Spain, respectively; (b) under limited capacity, average benefits are higher than 30.32% of annual GDP in all countries. The simulation results imply that the benefits of lockdown are not substantial unless continued until vaccination of high-risk groups is complete. It is illustrated that lockdown may not bring net benefits under some scenarios and a soft lockdown will be a more efficient alternative from mid-June 2020 only if the basic reproduction number is maintained low (not necessarily below 1) and productivity costs are sufficiently reduced.

Prospective study of loss of health-related quality adjusted life years in children and their families due to uncomplicated and hospitalised varicella.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Although usually benign, varicella can lead to serious complications and sometimes long-term sequelae. Vaccines are safe and effective but not yet included in immunisation programmes in many countries. We aimed to quantify the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in children with varicella and their families, key to assessing cost-utility in countries with low mortality due to this infection. METHODS: Children with varicella in the community and admitted to hospitals in Portugal were included over 18 months from January 2019. Children's and carers' HRQoL losses were assessed prospectively using standard multi-attribute utility instruments for measuring HRQoL (EQ-5D and CHU9D), from presentation to recovery, allowing the calculation of QALYs. RESULTS: Among 109 families with children with varicella recruited from attendees at a pediatric emergency service (community arm), the mean HRQoL loss/child was 2.0 days (95 % CI 1.9-2.2, n = 101) (mean 5.4 QALYs/1000 children (95 % CI 5.3-6.1) and 1.3 days/primary carer (95 % CI 1.2-1.6, n = 103) (mean 3.6 QALYs /1000 carers (95 % CI 3.4-4.4). Among 114 families with children admitted to hospital because of severe varicella or a complication (hospital arm), the mean HRQoL loss/child was 9.8 days (95 % CI 9.4-10.6, n = 114) (mean 26.8 QALYs /1000 children (95 % CI 25.8-29.0) and 8.5 days/primary carer (95 % CI 7.4-9.6, n = 114) (mean 23.4 QALYs/1000 carers (95 % CI 20.3-26.2). Mean QALY losses/1000 patients were particularly high for bone and joint infections [67.5 (95 % CI 43.9-97.6)]. Estimates for children's QALYs lost using the CHU9D tool were well correlated with those obtained using EQ-5D, but substantially lower. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of varicella on HRQoL is substantial. We report the first measurements of QALYs lost in hospitalised children and in the families of children both in the community and admitted to hospital, providing important information to guide vaccination policy recommendations.

Cost-effectiveness of a whole-area testing pilot of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections with lateral flow devices: a modelling and economic analysis study.

BACKGROUND: Mass community testing for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow devices (LFDs) aims to reduce prevalence in the community. However its effectiveness as a public heath intervention is disputed. METHOD: Data from a mass testing pilot in the Borough of Merthyr Tydfil in late 2020 was used to model cases, hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths prevented. Further economic analysis with a healthcare perspective assessed cost-effectiveness in terms of healthcare costs avoided and QALYs gained. RESULTS: An initial conservative estimate of 360 (95% CI: 311-418) cases were prevented by the mass testing, representing a would-be reduction of 11% of all cases diagnosed in Merthyr Tydfil residents during the same period. Modelling healthcare burden estimates that 24 (16-36) hospitalizations, 5 (3-6) ICU admissions and 15 (11-20) deaths were prevented, representing 6.37%, 11.1% and 8.2%, respectively of the actual counts during the same period. A less conservative, best-case scenario predicts 2333 (1764-3115) cases prevented, representing 80% reduction in would-be cases. Cost -effectiveness analysis indicates 108 (80-143) QALYs gained, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,143 (£860-£4,175) per QALY gained and net monetary benefit of £6.2 m (£4.5 m-£8.4 m). In the best-case scenario, this increases to £15.9 m (£12.3 m-£20.5 m). CONCLUSIONS: A non-negligible number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths were prevented by the mass testing pilot. Considering QALYs gained and healthcare costs avoided, the pilot was cost-effective. These findings suggest mass testing with LFDs in areas of high prevalence (> 2%) is likely to provide significant public health benefit. It is not yet clear whether similar benefits will be obtained in low prevalence settings or with vaccination rollout.

Valuing COVID-19 Morbidity Risk Reductions.

Many economic analyses, including those that address the COVID-19 pandemic, focus on the value of averting deaths and do not include the value of averting nonfatal illnesses. Yet incorporating the value of averting nonfatal cases may change conclusions about the desirability of the policy. While per case values may be small, the number of nonfatal cases is often large, far outstripping the number of fatal cases. The value of averting nonfatal cases is also increasingly important in evaluating COVID-19 policy options as vaccine- and infection-related immunity and treatments reduce the case-fatality rate. Unfortunately, little valuation research is available that explicitly addresses COVID-19 morbidity. We describe and implement an approach for approximating the value of averting nonfatal illnesses or injuries and apply it to COVID-19 in the United States. We estimate gains from averting COVID-19 morbidity of about 0.01 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) per mild case averted, 0.02 QALY per severe case, and 3.15 QALYs per critical case. These gains translate into monetary values of about $5,300 per mild case, $11,000 per severe case, and $1.8 million per critical case. While these estimates are imprecise, they suggest the magnitude of the effects.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people living with HIV in Zimbabwe.

The COVID-19 pandemic was reported from March 2020 in Zimbabwe. COVID-19 containment measures which included repeated lockdowns have disrupted community interactions, reduced working hours, restricted travel and restricted HIV services for people living with HIV (PLHIV), among others. The study adopted a cross-sectional design. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected in all the 10 provinces and analysed. A sample size of 480 was calculated for the cross-sectional survey. Secondary data on HIV early warning indicators from 2018 to 2021 were extracted from 20 randomly selected health facilities and used for modelling. Mathematical modelling was conducted to assess the impact of COVID-19 on PLHIV. AIDS-related deaths increased from 20 100 in 2019 to 22 200 in 2020. In addition, there were significant years of life lost (yLLs) from premature mortality and years of life lost due to disability (yLDs) from COVID-19. Prevalence of COVID-19 among PLHIV was 4%. COVID-19 vaccination coverage was 64%, which is higher than the national average of 42%. Stress and breach of confidentiality as ARV medicines were given out in open spaces and fear of contracting COVID-19 were the perceived psychological issues. COVID-19 disrupted HIV service provision, increased AIDS-related deaths and caused psychological challenges.

Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life in Non-Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Cases With Confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection in England: Longitudinal Analysis and Cross-Sectional Comparison With Controls.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to quantify the unknown losses in health-related quality of life of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases using quality-adjusted lifedays (QALDs) and the recommended EQ-5D instrument in England. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of nonhospitalized, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive (SARS-CoV-2-positive) cases aged 12-85 years and followed up for 6 months from 1 December 2020, with cross-sectional comparison to SARS-CoV-2-negative controls. Main outcomes were QALD losses; physical symptoms; and COVID-19-related private expenditures. We analyzed results using multivariable regressions with post hoc weighting by age and sex, and conditional logistic regressions for the association of each symptom and EQ-5D limitation on cases and controls. RESULTS: Of 548 cases (mean age 41.1 years; 61.5% female), 16.8% reported physical symptoms at month 6 (most frequently extreme tiredness, headache, loss of taste and/or smell, and shortness of breath). Cases reported more limitations with doing usual activities than controls. Almost half of cases spent a mean of £18.1 on nonprescription drugs (median: £10.0), and 52.7% missed work or school for a mean of 12 days (median: 10). On average, all cases lost 13.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.7, 17.7) QALDs, whereas those reporting symptoms at month 6 lost 32.9 (95% CI: 24.5, 37.6) QALDs. Losses also increased with older age. Cumulatively, the health loss from morbidity contributes at least 18% of the total COVID-19-related disease burden in the England. CONCLUSIONS: One in 6 cases report ongoing symptoms at 6 months, and 10% report prolonged loss of function compared to pre-COVID-19 baselines. A marked health burden was observed among older COVID-19 cases and those with persistent physical symptoms.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remdesivir Treatment in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Low-Flow Oxygen Therapy: Payer Perspective in Turkey.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir compared to other existing therapies (SoC) in Turkey to treat COVID-19 patients hospitalized with < 94% saturation and low-flow oxygen therapy (LFOT) requirement. METHODS: We compared remdesivir as the treatment for COVID-19 with the treatments in the Turkish treatment guidelines. Analyses were performed using data from 78 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with SpO2 < 94% who received LFOT in a tertiary healthcare facility. COVID-19 episode costs were calculated for 78 patients considering the cost of modeled remdesivir treatment in the same group from the payer's perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated for remdesivir versus the SoC for the population identified. For Turkey, a reimbursement threshold value between USD 8599 (1 × per capita gross domestic product-GDP) and USD 25.797 (3 × GDP) per QALY was used. RESULTS: In the remdesivir arm, the length of hospital stay (LOS) was 3 days shorter than the SOC. The low ventilator requirement in the remdesivir arm was one factor that decreased the QALY disutility value. In patients who were transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) from the ward, the mean LOS was 17.3 days (SD 13.6), and the mean cost of stay was USD 155.3/day (SD 168.0), while in patients who were admitted to ICU at baseline, the mean LOS was 13.1 days (SD 13.7), and the mean cost of stay was USD 207.9/day (SD 133.6). The mean cost of episode per patient was USD 3461.1 (SD 2259.8) in the remdesivir arm and USD 3538.9 (SD 3296.0) in the SOC arm. Incremental QALYs were estimated at 0.174. Remdesivir treatment was determined to be cost saving vs. SoC. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir, which results in shorter LOS and lower rates of intubation requirements in ICU patients than existing therapies, is associated with higher QALYs and lower costs, dominating SoC in patients with SpO2 < 94% who require oxygen support.

Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Losses Averted With Every COVID-19 Infection Prevented in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the overall quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained by averting 1 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection over the duration of the pandemic. METHODS: A cohort-based probabilistic simulation model, informed by the latest epidemiological estimates on COVID-19 in the United States provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and literature review. Heterogeneity of parameter values across age group was accounted for. The main outcome studied was QALYs for the infected patient, patient's family members, and the contagion effect of the infected patient over the duration of the pandemic. RESULTS: Averting a COVID-19 infection in a representative US resident will generate an additional 0.061 (0.016-0.129) QALYs (for the patient: 0.055, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.014-0.115; for the patient's family members: 0.006, 95% CI 0.002-0.015). Accounting for the contagion effect of this infection, and assuming that an effective vaccine will be available in 3 months, the total QALYs gains from averting 1 single infection is 1.51 (95% CI 0.28-4.37) accrued to patients and their family members affected by the index infection and its sequelae. These results were robust to most parameter values and were most influenced by effective reproduction number, probability of death outside the hospital, the time-varying hazard rates of hospitalization, and death in critical care. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the health benefits of averting 1 COVID-19 infection in the United States are substantial. Efforts to curb infections must weigh the costs against these benefits.

Estimating (quality-adjusted) life-year losses associated with deaths: With application to COVID-19.

Many epidemiological models of the COVID-19 pandemic have focused on preventing deaths. Questions have been raised as to the frailty of those succumbing to the COVID-19 infection. In this paper we employ standard life table methods to illustrate how the potential quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) losses associated with COVID-19 fatalities could be estimated, while adjusting for comorbidities in terms of impact on both mortality and quality of life. Contrary to some suggestions in the media, we find that even relatively elderly patients with high levels of comorbidity can still lose substantial life years and QALYs. The simplicity of the method facilitates straightforward international comparisons as the pandemic evolves. In particular, we compare five different countries and show that differences in the average QALY losses for each COVID-19 fatality is driven mainly by differing age distributions for those dying of the disease.

Economic, social and political issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article contributes to the assessment of public policies to control the incidence of COVID-19 in several ways. (1) It contains a brief historical and comparative overview of selected pandemics, particularly in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) It provides a simple original model which could be used to prioritize the admission of COVID-19 sufferers to hospital (taking into account available hospital capacity) and (3) it specifies a second model to evaluate desired social choices involving the trade-off between the severity of social restrictions (taking into account their impact on the incidence of COVID-19) and the level of economic activity. Bergson-type welfare functions are utilized in the second model. It also critically examines the proposition that the isolation (lockdown) of social groups is a desirable method of limiting the incidence of COVID-19. This leads onto the consideration of the extent to which personal freedom of choice (liberty) ought to be restricted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A brief outline follows illustrating the factors that are likely to hinder economic recovery from COVID-19. Particular attention is paid to the moral and ethical questions raised by policies to control COVID-19. These appear to have received little attention in the relevant economic literature.