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.

Innovations to automate manual ventilation during Covid-19 pandemic and beyond.

Manual ventilation by compressing self-inflating bags is a life-saving option for respiratory support in many resource-limited settings. Previous efforts to automate manual ventilation using mechatronic systems were unsuccessful. The Covid-19 pandemic stimulated re-exploration of automating manual ventilation as an economically viable alternative to address the anticipated shortage of mechanical ventilators. Many devices have been developed and displayed in the lay press and social media platforms. However, most are unsuitable for clinical use for a variety of reasons. These include failure to understand the clinical needs, complex ventilatory requirements in Covid-19 patients, lack of technical specifications to guide innovators, technical challenges in delivering ventilation parameters in a physiological manner, absence of guidelines for bench testing of innovative devices and lack of clinical validation in patients. The insights gained during the design, development, laboratory testing and clinical validation of a novel device designated the 'Artificial Breathing Capability Device' are shared here to assist innovators in developing clinically usable devices. A detailed set of clinical requirements from such devices, technical specifications to meet these requirements and framework for bench testing are presented. In addition, regulatory and certification issues, as well as concerns related to the protection of intellectual property, are highlighted. These insights are designed to foster an innovation ecosystem whereby clinically useful automated manual ventilation devices can be developed and deployed to meet the needs associated with the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond.

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.

Increasing ventilator surge capacity in COVID 19 pandemic: design, manufacture and in vitro-in vivo testing in anaesthetized healthy pigs of a rapid prototyped mechanical ventilator.

OBJECTIVE: The advent of new technologies has made it possible to explore alternative ventilator manufacturing to meet the worldwide shortfall for mechanical ventilators especially in pandemics. We describe a method using rapid prototyping technologies to create an electro-mechanical ventilator in a cost effective, timely manner and provide results of testing using an in vitro-in vivo testing model. RESULTS: Rapid prototyping technologies (3D printing and 2D cutting) were used to create a modular ventilator. The artificial manual breathing unit (AMBU) bag connected to wall oxygen source using a flow meter was used as air reservoir. Controlled variables include respiratory rate, tidal volume and inspiratory: expiratory (I:E) ratio. In vitro testing and In vivo testing in the pig model demonstrated comparable mechanical efficiency of the test ventilator to that of standard ventilator but showed the material limits of 3D printed gears. Improved gear design resulted in better ventilator durability whilst reducing manufacturing time (< 2-h). The entire cost of manufacture of ventilator was estimated at 300 Australian dollars. A cost-effective novel rapid prototyped ventilator for use in patients with respiratory failure was developed in < 2-h and was effective in anesthetized, healthy pig model.

Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Patients, with a Focus on Resource-Limited Settings.

The ongoing novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening the global human population, including in countries with resource-limited health facilities. Severe bilateral pneumonia is the main feature of severe COVID-19, and adequate ventilatory support is crucial for patient survival. Although our knowledge of the disease is still rapidly increasing, this review summarizes current guidance on the best provision of ventilatory support, with a focus on resource-limited settings. Key messages include that supplemental oxygen is a first essential step for the treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with hypoxemia and should be a primary focus in resource-limited settings where capacity for invasive ventilation is limited. Oxygen delivery can be increased by using a non-rebreathing mask and prone positioning. The presence of only hypoxemia should in general not trigger intubation because hypoxemia is often remarkably well tolerated. Patients with fatigue and at risk for exhaustion, because of respiratory distress, will require invasive ventilation. In these patients, lung protective ventilation is essential. Severe pneumonia in COVID-19 differs in some important aspects from other causes of severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome, and limiting the positive end-expiratory pressure level on the ventilator may be important. This ventilation strategy might reduce the currently very high case fatality rate of more than 50% in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients.