Treatment of moderate to severe respiratory COVID-19: a cost-utility analysis.

Despite COVID-19's significant morbidity and mortality, considering cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment strategies for hospitalized patients remains critical to support healthcare resource decisions within budgetary constraints. As such, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of using remdesivir and dexamethasone for moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory infections using the United States health care system as a representative model. A decision analytic model modelled a base case scenario of a 60-year-old patient admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Patients requiring oxygen were considered moderate severity, and patients with severe COVID-19 required intubation with intensive care. Strategies modelled included giving remdesivir to all patients, remdesivir in only moderate and only severe infections, dexamethasone to all patients, dexamethasone in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections, and best supportive care. Data for the model came from the published literature. The time horizon was 1 year; no discounting was performed due to the short duration. The perspective was of the payer in the United States health care system. Supportive care for moderate/severe COVID-19 cost $11,112.98 with 0.7155 quality adjusted life-year (QALY) obtained. Using dexamethasone for all patients was the most-cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $980.84/QALY; all remdesivir strategies were more costly and less effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed dexamethasone for all patients was most cost-effective in 98.3% of scenarios. Dexamethasone for moderate-severe COVID-19 infections was the most cost-effective strategy and would have minimal budget impact. Based on current data, remdesivir is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for COVID-19.

Health outcomes and economic burden of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate health outcomes and the economic burden of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the United States. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis code for COVID-19 (ICD-10 code U07.1) from 1 April to 31 October 2020 were identified in the Premier Healthcare COVID-19 Database. Patient demographics, hospitalization characteristics, and concomitant medical conditions were assessed. Hospital length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, hospital charges, and hospital costs were evaluated overall and stratified by age groups, insurance types, and 4 COVID-19 disease progression states based on intensive care unit (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) usage. RESULTS: Of the 173,942 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the median age was 63 years, 51.0% were male, and 48.5% were covered by Medicare. The most prevalent concomitant medical conditions were cardiovascular disease (73.5%), hypertension (64.8%), diabetes (40.7%), obesity (27.0%), and chronic kidney disease (24.2%). Approximately one-fifth (21.9%) of the hospitalized COVID-19 patients were admitted to the ICU and 16.9% received IMV; most patients (73.6%) did not require ICU admission or IMV, and 12.4% required both. The median hospital LOS was 5 days, in-hospital mortality was 13.6%, median hospital charges were $43,986, and median hospital costs were $12,046. Hospital LOS and in-hospital mortality increased with ICU and/or IMV usage and age; hospital charges and costs increased with ICU and/or IMV usage. Patients with both ICU and IMV usage had the longest median hospital LOS (15 days), highest in-hospital mortality (53.8%), and highest hospital charges ($198,394) and hospital costs ($54,402). LIMITATIONS: This retrospective administrative database analysis relied on coding accuracy and a subset of admissions with validated/reconciled hospital costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study summarizes the severe health outcomes and substantial hospital costs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US. The findings support the urgent need for rapid implementation of effective interventions, including safe and efficacious vaccines.

How Many Intensive Care Beds are Justifiable for Hospital Pandemic Preparedness? A Cost-effectiveness Analysis for COVID-19 in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Germany is experiencing the second COVID-19 pandemic wave. The intensive care unit (ICU) bed capacity is an important consideration in the response to the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to determine the costs and benefits of maintaining or expanding a staffed ICU bed reserve capacity in Germany. METHODS: This study compared the provision of additional capacity to no intervention from a societal perspective. A decision model was developed using, e.g. information on age-specific fatality rates, ICU costs and outcomes, and the herd protection threshold. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated based upon the willingness to pay for new medicines for the treatment of cancer, a condition with a similar disease burden in the near term. RESULTS: The marginal cost-effectiveness ratio (MCER) of the last bed added to the existing ICU capacity is €21,958 per life-year gained assuming full bed utilization. The NMB decreases with an additional expansion but remains positive for utilization rates as low as 2%. In a sensitivity analysis, the variables with the highest impact on the MCER were the mortality rates in the ICU and after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This article demonstrates the applicability of cost-effectiveness analysis to policies of hospital pandemic preparedness and response capacity strengthening. In Germany, the provision of a staffed ICU bed reserve capacity appears to be cost-effective even for a low probability of bed utilization.

Comorbidity in context: Part 2. Ethicolegal considerations around HIV and tuberculosis during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought discussions around the appropriate and fair rationing of scare resources to the forefront. This is of special importance in a country such as South Africa (SA), where scarce resources interface with high levels of need. A large proportion of the SA population has risk factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. Many people are also potentially medically and socially vulnerable secondary to the high levels of infection with HIV and tuberculosis (TB) in the country. This is the second of two articles. The first examined the clinical evidence regarding the inclusion of HIV and TB as comorbidities relevant to intensive care unit (ICU) admission triage criteria. Given the fact that patients with HIV or TB may potentially be excluded from admission to an ICU on the basis of an assumption of lack of clinical suitability for critical care, in this article we explore the ethicolegal implications of limiting ICU access of persons living with HIV or TB. We argue that all allocation and rationing decisions must be in terms of SA law, which prohibits unfair discrimination. In addition, ethical decision-making demands accurate and evidence-based strategies for the fair distribution of limited resources. Rationing decisions and processes should be fair and based on visible and consistent criteria that can be subjected to objective scrutiny, with the ultimate aim of ensuring accountability, equity and fairness.

Comorbidity in context: Part 1. Medical considerations around HIV and tuberculosis during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa.

Infectious diseases pandemics have devastating health, social and economic consequences, especially in developing countries such as South Africa. Scarce medical resources must often be rationed effectively to contain the disease outbreak. In the case of COVID-19, even the best-resourced countries will have inadequate intensive care facilities for the large number of patients needing admission and ventilation. The scarcity of medical resources creates the need for national governments to establish admission criteria that are evidence-based and fair. Questions have been raised whether infection with HIV or tuberculosis (TB) may amplify the risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes and therefore whether these conditions should be factored in when deciding on the rationing of intensive care facilities. In light of these questions, clinical evidence regarding inclusion of these infections as comorbidities relevant to intensive care unit admission triage criteria is investigated in the first of a two-part series of articles. There is currently no evidence to indicate that HIV or TB infection on their own predispose to an increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 or worse outcomes for COVID-19. It is recommended that, as for other medical conditions, validated scoring systems for poor prognostic factors should be applied. A subsequent article examines the ethicolegal implications of limiting intensive care access of persons living with HIV or TB.

COVID-19 and US Health Financing: Perils and Possibilities.

While the COVID-19 pandemic presents every nation with challenges, the United States' underfunded public health infrastructure, fragmented medical care system, and inadequate social protections impose particular impediments to mitigating and managing the outbreak. Years of inadequate funding of the nation's federal, state, and local public health agencies, together with mismanagement by the Trump administration, hampered the early response to the epidemic. Meanwhile, barriers to care faced by uninsured and underinsured individuals in the United States could deter COVID-19 care and hamper containment efforts, and lead to adverse medical and financial outcomes for infected individuals and their families, particularly those from disadvantaged groups. While the United States has a relatively generous supply of Intensive Care Unit beds and most other health care infrastructure, such medical resources are often unevenly distributed or deployed, leaving some areas ill-prepared for a severe respiratory epidemic. These deficiencies and shortfalls have stimulated a debate about policy solutions. Recent legislation, for instance, expanded coverage for testing for COVID-19 for the uninsured and underinsured, and additional reforms have been proposed. However comprehensive health care reform - for example, via national health insurance - is needed to provide full protection to American families during the COVID-19 outbreak and in its aftermath.

COVID-19 Trend Estimation in the Elderly Italian Region of Sardinia.

December 2019 saw a novel coronavirus (COVID-19) from China quickly spread globally. Currently, COVID-19, defined as the new pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), has reached over 750,000 confirmed cases worldwide. The virus began to spread in Italy from the 22nd February, and the number of related cases is still increasing. Furthermore, given that a relevant proportion of infected people need hospitalization in Intensive Care Units, this may be a crucial issue for National Healthcare System's capacity. WHO underlines the importance of specific disease regional estimates. Because of this, Italy aimed to put in place proportioned and controlled measures, and to guarantee adequate funding to both increase the number of ICU beds and increase production of personal protective equipment. Our aim is to investigate the current COVID-19 epidemiological context in Sardinia region (Italy) and to estimate the transmission parameters using a stochastic model to establish the number of infected, recovered, and deceased people expected. Based on available data from official Italian and regional sources, we describe the distribution of infected cases during the period between 2nd and 15th March 2020. To better reflect the actual spread of COVID-19 in Sardinia based on data from 15th March (first Sardinian declared outbreak), two Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered-Dead (SIRD) models have been developed, describing the best and worst scenarios. We believe that our findings represent a valid contribution to better understand the epidemiological context of COVID-19 in Sardinia. Our analysis can help health authorities and policymakers to address the right interventions to deal with the rapidly expanding health emergency.

The Potential Health Care Costs And Resource Use Associated With COVID-19 In The United States.

With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, one of the major concerns is the direct medical cost and resource use burden imposed on the US health care system. We developed a Monte Carlo simulation model that represented the US population and what could happen to each person who got infected. We estimated resource use and direct medical costs per symptomatic infection and at the national level, with various "attack rates" (infection rates), to understand the potential economic benefits of reducing the burden of the disease. A single symptomatic COVID-19 case could incur a median direct medical cost of $3,045 during the course of the infection alone. If 80 percent of the US population were to get infected, the result could be a median of 44.6 million hospitalizations, 10.7 million intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, 6.5 million patients requiring a ventilator, 249.5 million hospital bed days, and $654.0 billion in direct medical costs over the course of the pandemic. If 20 percent of the US population were to get infected, there could be a median of 11.2 million hospitalizations, 2.7 million ICU admissions, 1.6 million patients requiring a ventilator, 62.3 million hospital bed days, and $163.4 billion in direct medical costs over the course of the pandemic.