Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Policy Measures: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on our society, with drastic policy restrictions being implemented to contain the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This study aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of various coronavirus disease 2019 policy measures. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Health economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Their quality was comprehensively assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. Next, the quality of the epidemiological models was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 3688 articles were identified (March 2021), of which 23 were included. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to methodological quality, contextual factors, strategies' content, adopted perspective, applied models, and outcomes used. Overall, testing/screening, social distancing, personal protective equipment, quarantine/isolation, and hygienic measures were found to be cost-effective. Furthermore, the most optimal choice and combination of strategies depended on the reproduction number and context. With a rising reproduction number, extending the testing strategy and early implementation of combined multiple restriction measures are most efficient. CONCLUSIONS: The quality assessment highlighted numerous flaws and limitations in the study approaches; hence, their results should be interpreted with caution because the specific context (country, target group, etc) is a key driver for cost-effectiveness. Finally, including a societal perspective in future evaluations is key because this pandemic has an indirect impact on the onset and treatment of other conditions and on our global economy.

Rapid COVID-19 testing: Speed, quality and cost. Can you have all three?

KEY MESSAGES.

QALYs for COVID-19: A Comparison of US EQ-5D-5L Value Sets.

BACKGROUND: In economic evaluations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) can serve as a unit of measurement for disease burden. Obtaining QALY values for COVID-19 presents a challenge owing to the availability of two US EQ-5D-5L value sets and the potentially asymptomatic presentation of the disease. The first value set was completed allowing for the discounting of future health outcomes while the second value set is undiscounted. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the distribution of QALY values using a national survey and the two published value sets; and to estimate the association between COVID-19 outcomes and QALY losses. METHODS: Between 9 and 11 November, 2020, 1153 US adults completed the EQ-5D-5L instrument (five items and a visual analog scale) as well as self-reported their demographics, COVID-19 symptoms, and memberships to populations that are at risk of COVID-19 infection. The two US value sets were applied to the EQ-5D-5L responses to produce QALY values. We estimated the mean QALYs by visual analog scale decile and a generalized linear model of COVID-19 outcomes. RESULTS: The discounted values are higher than the undiscounted values for each visual analog scale decile owing to methodological differences. Persons at increased risk, with a fever in the past day, and with one or more other symptoms have significantly greater QALY losses (p < 0.01). Overall, non-institutionalized individuals at risk of symptomatic clinical COVID-19 equal 0.68 for the 2016 value set (95% confidence interval 0.49-0.87) and 0.10 for the 2017 value set (95% confidence interval - 0.31 to 0.51) QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple studies have shown that decision makers discount future health outcomes, which increase QALY values. This study confronts the practical implications of these methodological advances for use in COVID-19 economic evaluations. Health economists will be able to use the QALY values in this study to better evaluate health interventions against COVID-19.

Evaluation of N95 respirators, modified snorkel masks and low-cost powered air-purifying respirators: a prospective observational cohort study in healthcare workers.

Disposable N95 respirator masks are the current standard for healthcare worker respiratory protection in the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to shortages, qualitative fit testing can have low sensitivity for detecting poor fit, leading to inconsistent protection. Multiple groups have developed alternative solutions such as modified snorkel masks to overcome these limitations, but validation of these solutions has been lacking. We sought to determine if N95s and snorkel masks with attached high-efficiency filters provide consistent protection levels in healthcare workers and if the addition of positive pressure via an inexpensive powered-air purifying respirator to the snorkel mask would provide enhanced protection. Fifty-one healthcare workers who were qualitatively fitted with N95 masks underwent quantitative mask fit testing according to a simulated workplace exercise protocol. N95, snorkel masks with high-efficiency filters and snorkel masks with powered-air purifying respirators were tested. Respiratory filtration ratios were collected for each step and averaged to obtain an overall workplace protocol fit factor. Failure was defined as either an individual filtration ratio or an overall fit factor below 100. N95s and snorkel masks with high-efficiency filters failed one or more testing steps in 59% and 20% of participants, respectively, and 24% and 12% failed overall fit factors, respectively. The snorkel masks with powered-air purifying respirators had zero individual or overall failures. N95 and snorkel masks with high-efficiency filter respirators were found to provide inconsistent respiratory protection in healthcare workers.