Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 443
Filter
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(21)2022 Oct 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2163324

ABSTRACT

When a viral outbreak occurs, governments are obligated to protect their citizens from the diverse adverse effects of the disease. Health policymakers often have several interventions to consider based on the health of the population, as well as the cascading social and economic consequences of the possible mitigation strategies. The current outbreak of the monkeypox virus has elicited debate on the best mitigation strategy, especially given that most world economies are still recovering from the harsh economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper sought to analyze the costs and benefits of three possible strategies and determine which option has the best health outcomes and positive economic effects. A case study of Jeddah was performed, whereby a model was simulated to determine the number of infections over 28 days based on one case of the monkeypox virus. Findings reveal that the vaccination provides the best intervention, as it effectively reduces the transmission rate and prevents loss of lives in the city. From the model, only three people were infected over the research period, while no deaths were reported. Although vaccination incurs a huge direct cost at the beginning, in the long run, it saves the economy from the disease's financial burden in terms of productivity loss from work absenteeism and premature deaths.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Monkeypox virus , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination
2.
Front Public Health ; 10: 917732, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2154833

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study aimed to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines (CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV) in China using existing international clinical trials and real-world evidence. Methods: Through a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI, studies investigating the effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines were identified, and a meta-analysis was undertaken to synthesize the vaccine efficacy and effectiveness data. Moreover, a decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of inactivated vaccines for combating the COVID-19 pandemic in the Chinese context from a societal perspective. Results of the meta-analysis, along with cost data from official websites and works of literature were used to populate the model. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model results. Results: A total of 24 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison to no immunization, the effectiveness of inactivated vaccine against COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and death were 65.18% (95% CI 62.62, 67.75), 79.10% (95% CI 71.69, 86.51), 90.46% (95% CI 89.42, 91.50), and 86.69% (95% CI 85.68, 87.70); and the efficacy against COVID-19 infection and hospitalization were 70.56% (95% CI 57.87, 83.24) and 100% (95% CI 61.72, 100). Inactivated vaccine vaccination prevented more infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths with lower total costs, thus was cost-saving from a societal perspective in China. Base-case analysis results were robust in the one-way sensitivity analysis, and the percentage of ICU admission or death and direct medical cost ranked the top influential factors in our models. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, vaccination had a 100% probability of being cost-effective. Conclusion: Inactivated vaccine is effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and avoiding COVID-19 related death, and COVID-19 vaccination program is cost-saving from societal perspective in China.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Cost-Benefit Analysis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , China/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Vaccines, Inactivated/therapeutic use
3.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm ; 28(5): 555-565, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2145820

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Most patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, resulting in COVID-19, have only mild symptoms that can be managed in an ambulatory setting. However, a significant number of patients develop a more severe form of the disease and require hospital care, with the risk of long-term sequelae or death. Casirivimab/imdevimab is a combination of 2 recombinant human monoclonal antibodies that has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization or death in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting. OBJECTIVE: To establish the cost-effectiveness of casirivimab/imdevimab in ambulatory individuals with COVID-19. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was constructed to simulate the natural history of COVID-19 in ambulatory patients and to identify those patients for whom casirivimab/imdevimab may be a cost-effective treatment from a US payer perspective. Patients enter the model in the ambulatory health state and can receive either active treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab or usual care. Patients can either recover from the infection or be hospitalized, from where they can recover from infection or die. Following this acute phase, patients enter a Markov model to estimate lifetime quality-adjusted life years. The model uses the risk of hospitalization in both the active treatment and usual care cohorts, and age- and sex-specific risk of mortality. Other model inputs include hospitalization costs and health-related utilities in the ambulatory acute treatment phase, the hospitalized setting, and the post-acute phase. Accounting for the heterogeneity of risk by age and comorbidities, results are presented separately for various combinations of baseline age and usual care risk in a 7 × 9 matrix. Outcomes related to "long COVID" are assessed in scenario analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab was found to be cost-effective in most patients, including those older than 40 years of age with a baseline hospitalization risk greater than or equal to 2% and patients aged 20 years with a baseline risk of hospitalization greater than or equal to 4%, whereas for hospitalization risk greater than or equal to 10%, casirivimab/imdevimab is dominant. Casirivimab/imdevimab was not cost-effective in patients aged 20 years with a 3% or lower risk of hospitalization or in patients aged 30 years with a 2% risk. CONCLUSIONS: This economic analysis found that casirivimab/imdevimab is a cost-effective treatment for most ambulatory patients with COVID-19. DISCLOSURES: N. Jovanoski and U. Becker are employees of F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.; A. Kuznik and M. Hussein are employees of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and hold stock and stock options; A. Briggs has provided consultancy to F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. and has received consultancy fees from Merck and Co., Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., and Novartis. This study was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Orv Hetil ; 163(43): 1704-1712, 2022 Oct 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2140898

ABSTRACT

An increasing proportion of cancer patients remains permanently tumor-free after primary care due to modern curative treatments. However, the life expectancy and quality of life deteriorate significantly in most relapsed cases in spite of different palliative therapies. To detect the early relapse in asymptomatic stage, patients undergo a pre-planned care process, targeting primarily their improved survival. Several studies and reviews have been conducted in recent decades to determine the optimal and rational frequency and methods of control examinations. The data of different follow-up strategies were analyzed from several perspectives. Recommended follow-up protocols differ significantly based on the origin, histological characteristics, stage, prognostic factors and typical sites of recurrences, such as local, "oligometastatic" or systemic relapse of tumors. In addition to the detection of recurrence, the importance of quality of life, monitoring of psychological status and psychosomatic complaints as well as the cost-effectiveness of protocols also came to the focus. Involving family doctors or qualified nurses in routine oncology follow-up may function as an alternative option to reducing the workload of specialists. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the use of telemedicine methods in the evaluation of examinations and follow-up strategies coming to the fore, while at the same time this made the re-evaluation of control care algorithms even more important. In this paper, we review the results of studies comparing the different follow-up strategies, highlighting which protocols help to optimize the use of health care capacity while preserving the survival chance of cancer patients in relapse. Orv Hetil. 2022; 163(43): 1704-1712.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Quality of Life , Humans , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cost-Benefit Analysis
5.
BMC Med ; 20(1): 452, 2022 Nov 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2139290

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic testing has been pivotal in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections and reducing transmission through the isolation of positive cases. We quantified the value of implementing frequent, rapid antigen (RA) testing in the workplace to identify screening programs that are cost-effective. METHODS: To project the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths under alternative screening programs, we adapted an agent-based model of COVID-19 transmission and parameterized it with the demographics of Ontario, Canada, incorporating vaccination and waning of immunity. Taking into account healthcare costs and productivity losses associated with each program, we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as the measure of effect. Considering RT-PCR testing of only severe cases as the baseline scenario, we estimated the incremental net monetary benefits (iNMB) of the screening programs with varying durations and initiation times, as well as different booster coverages of working adults. RESULTS: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CDN$30,000 per QALY loss averted, twice weekly workplace screening was cost-effective only if the program started early during a surge. In most scenarios, the iNMB of RA screening without a confirmatory RT-PCR or RA test was comparable or higher than the iNMB for programs with a confirmatory test for RA-positive cases. When the program started early with a duration of at least 16 weeks and no confirmatory testing, the iNMB exceeded CDN$1.1 million per 100,000 population. Increasing booster coverage of working adults improved the iNMB of RA screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that frequent RA testing starting very early in a surge, without a confirmatory test, is a preferred screening program for the detection of asymptomatic infections in workplaces.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Workplace , Adult , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Ontario
6.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 22(1): 1410, 2022 Nov 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2139274

ABSTRACT

AIM: The European Union (EU) has received criticism for being slow to secure coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine contracts in 2020 before the approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the EU's COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy. To this end, the study retrospectively determined the minimum vaccine efficacy that made vaccination cost-effective from a societal perspective in Germany before clinical trial announcements in late 2020. The results were compared with the expected vaccine efficacy before the announcements. METHODS: Two strategies were analyzed: vaccination followed by the complete lifting of mitigation measures and a long-term mitigation strategy. A decision model was constructed using, for example, information on age-specific fatality rates, intensive care unit costs and outcomes, and herd protection thresholds. The base-case time horizon was 5 years. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination was determined in terms of the costs per life-year gained. The value of an additional life-year was borrowed from new, innovative oncological drugs, as cancer is a condition with a perceived threat similar to that of COVID-19. RESULTS: A vaccine with 50% efficacy against death due to COVID-19 was not clearly cost-effective compared with a long-term mitigation strategy if mitigation measures were planned to be lifted after vaccine rollout. The minimum vaccine efficacy required to achieve cost-effectiveness was 40% in the base case. The sensitivity analysis showed considerable variation around the minimum vaccine efficacy, extending above 50% for some of the input variables. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that vaccine efficacy levels expected before clinical trial announcements did not clearly justify lifting mitigation measures from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. Hence, the EU's sluggish procurement strategy still appeared to be rational at the time of decision making.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination
7.
J Infect Dis ; 226(11): 1887-1896, 2022 Nov 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2135319

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite the advent of safe and effective coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, pervasive inequities in global vaccination persist. METHODS: We projected health benefits and donor costs of delivering vaccines for up to 60% of the population in 91 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We modeled a highly contagious (Re at model start, 1.7), low-virulence (infection fatality ratio [IFR], 0.32%) "Omicron-like" variant and a similarly contagious "severe" variant (IFR, 0.59%) over 360 days, accounting for country-specific age structure and healthcare capacity. Costs included vaccination startup (US$630 million) and per-person procurement and delivery (US$12.46/person vaccinated). RESULTS: In the Omicron-like scenario, increasing current vaccination coverage to achieve at least 15% in each of the 91 LMICs would prevent 11 million new infections and 120 000 deaths, at a cost of US$0.95 billion, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$670/year of life saved (YLS). Increases in vaccination coverage to 60% would additionally prevent up to 68 million infections and 160 000 deaths, with ICERs

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Developing Countries , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Vaccination
8.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 28(12): 1651.e1-1651.e8, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2130467

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Emergency departments (EDs) were on the front line for the diagnostic workup of patients with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave. Chest imaging was the key to rapidly identifying COVID-19 before administering RT-PCR, which was time-consuming. The objective of our study was to compare the costs and organizational benefits of triage strategies in ED during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in five EDs in France, involving 3712 consecutive patients consulting with COVID-like symptoms between 9 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, to assess the cost effectiveness of imaging strategies (chest radiography, chest computed tomography (CT) scan in the presence of respiratory symptoms, systematic ultra-low-dose (ULD) chest CT, and no systematic imaging) on ED length of stay (LOS) in the ED and on hospital costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in LOS. RESULTS: Compared with chest radiography, workup with systematic ULD chest CT was the more cost-effective strategy (average LOS of 6.89 hours; average cost of €3646), allowing for an almost 4-hour decrease in LOS in the ED at a cost increase of €98 per patient. Chest radiography (extendedly dominated) and RT-PCR with no systematic imaging were the least effective strategies, with an average LOS of 10.8 hours. The strategy of chest CT in the presence of respiratory symptoms was more effective than the systematic ULD chest CT strategy, with the former providing a gain of 37 minutes at an extra cost of €718. DISCUSSION: Systematic ULD chest CT for patients with COVID-like symptoms in the ED is a cost-effective strategy and should be considered to improve the management of patients in the ED during the pandemic, given the need to triage patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Retrospective Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital
9.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 19482, 2022 Nov 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2119365

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic created enormous public health and socioeconomic challenges. The health effects of vaccination and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were often contrasted with significant social and economic costs. We describe a general framework aimed to derive adaptive cost-effective interventions, adequate for both recent and emerging pandemic threats. We also quantify the net health benefits and propose a reinforcement learning approach to optimise adaptive NPIs. The approach utilises an agent-based model simulating pandemic responses in Australia, and accounts for a heterogeneous population with variable levels of compliance fluctuating over time and across individuals. Our analysis shows that a significant net health benefit may be attained by adaptive NPIs formed by partial social distancing measures, coupled with moderate levels of the society's willingness to pay for health gains (health losses averted). We demonstrate that a socially acceptable balance between health effects and incurred economic costs is achievable over a long term, despite possible early setbacks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Cost-Benefit Analysis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , Australia/epidemiology
10.
Trials ; 23(1): 942, 2022 Nov 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2117899

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the context of COVID-19, NHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and other children's mental health services have faced major challenges in providing psychological treatments that (i) work when delivered remotely and (ii) can be delivered efficiently to manage increases in referrals as social distancing measures have been relaxed. Anxiety problems are a common reason for referral to CAMHS, children with pre-existing anxiety problems are particularly vulnerable in the context of COVID-19, and there were concerns about increases in childhood anxiety as schools reopened. The proposed research will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a brief online parent-led cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) delivered by the OSI (Online Support and Intervention for child anxiety) platform with remote support from a CAMHS therapist compared to 'COVID-19 treatment as usual' (C-TAU) in CAMHS and other children's mental health services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We will conduct a two-arm, multi-site, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of OSI with therapist support compared to CAMHS and other child mental health services 'COVID-19 treatment as usual' (C-TAU) during the COVID-19 outbreak and to explore parent and therapists' experiences. DISCUSSION: If non-inferiority is shown, the research will provide (1) a solution for efficient psychological treatment for child anxiety disorders while social distancing (for the COVID-19 context and future pandemics); (2) an efficient means of treatment delivery as 'normal service' resumes to enable CAMHS to cope with the anticipated increase in referrals; and (3) a demonstration of rapid, high-quality evaluation and application of online interventions within NHS CAMHS to drive forward much-needed further digital innovation and evaluation in CAMHS settings. The primary beneficiaries will be children with anxiety disorders and their families, NHS CAMHS teams, and commissioners who will access a potentially effective, cost-effective, and efficient treatment for child anxiety problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN12890382 . Registered prospectively on 23 October 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health Services , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Pandemics , Anxiety Disorders/therapy , Parents/psychology , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/therapy , United Kingdom , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
12.
Health Technol Assess ; 26(41): 1-118, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2099087

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are a mainstay of the treatment of moderately severe relapses of ulcerative colitis, yet almost 50% of patients do not respond fully to these and risk prolonged steroid use and side effects. There is a lack of clarity about the definitions of steroid resistance, the optimum choice of treatment, and patient and health-care professional treatment preferences. OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this research was to understand how steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis is managed in adult secondary care and how current practice compares with patient and health-care professional preferences. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study, including an online survey, qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments. SETTING: NHS inflammatory bowel disease services in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ulcerative colitis and health-care professionals treating inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: We carried out a survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), qualitative interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), discrete choice experiments with health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115), and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals showed that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab) are the most frequently offered drugs across most steroid-resistant (and steroid-dependent) patient scenarios, but they are less frequently offered to thiopurine-naive patients. Patient interviews identified several factors influencing their treatment choices, including effectiveness of treatment, recommendations from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Over time, depending on the severity and duration of symptoms and, crucially, as medical treatment options become exhausted, patients are willing to try alternative treatments and, eventually, to undergo surgery. The discrete choice experiments found that the probability of remission and of side effects strongly influences the treatment choices of both patients and health-care professionals. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. The treatments ranked most positively by patients were infliximab and tofacitinib (each preferred by 38% of patients), and the predicted probability of uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab (62%). LIMITATIONS: The survey and the discrete choice experiments with patients and health-care professionals are limited by their relatively small sample sizes. The qualitative studies are subject to selection bias. The timing of the different substudies, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, is a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified factors influencing treatment decisions for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis and the characteristics to consider when choosing treatments to evaluate in future randomised controlled trials. The findings may be used to improve discussions between patients and health-care professionals when they review treatment options for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis. FUTURE WORK: This research highlights the need for consensus work to establish an agreed definition of steroid resistance in ulcerative colitis and a greater understanding of the optimal use of tofacitinib and surgery for this patient group. A randomised controlled trial comparing infliximab with tofacitinib is also recommended. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Steroids are one of the main treatments for ulcerative colitis; however, steroids work well for only about 50% of people who take them. There are many other treatments that can be given when steroids do not work, but evidence is limited about how these treatments are best used. To carry out better research about the best treatment options and to improve clinical practice in the future, this study aimed to find out how adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis are managed in hospital and why patients and health-care professionals prefer different treatments. The study combined various methods of research, including an online survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), a survey of health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115) to ask them about treatment preferences, and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals found that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that the most frequently offered drugs are anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab). Patient interviews found that several factors influenced treatment choices, including effectiveness of treament, guidance from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Patients were willing to try alternative treatments and surgery over time. The survey found that a higher level of remission and a lower chance of side effects strongly influenced treatment choices. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. Infliximab and tofacitinib were ranked most positively by patients, and the predicted uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab. The results of this study help improve understanding of why people choose certain treatments, improve decision-making in partnership and inform the design of future research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colitis, Ulcerative , Adult , Humans , Colitis, Ulcerative/drug therapy , Colitis, Ulcerative/surgery , Infliximab/therapeutic use , Patient Preference , Pandemics , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Prednisolone/therapeutic use , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
13.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0276782, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2098759

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led nucleic acid collection and detection became a measure to ensure normal life in China. Considering the huge detection demand, it has emerged that robots replace manual sample collection. However, the cost-effectiveness of nucleic acid collection by robots instead of humans remain unknown. METHODS: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Shenzhen Luohu District People's Hospital, number 2021-LHQRMYY-KYLL-031a. All participants signed the written informed consent of this study. 273 volunteers were recruited on December 1st 2021 from Shenzhen and divided into six groups: one group to be sampled by robots and the others to be sampled manually with varying specifications for swab rotation and insertion time. Questionnaires were distributed to the robot group to ask them sampling feeling. The effectiveness and safety of sampling were evaluated through the sampling efficiency, adverse events and sampling feeling of different groups. The economics of the different methods were judged by comparing the sampling cost for each. RESULTS: The sampling efficiency of the robot group was 96.9%, and there was no statistically significant difference between the other five manually sampled groups (p = 0.586). There were no serious adverse events in any of the six groups, but nasal soreness and tearing did occur in all group. Of the volunteers who underwent robotic sampling, 85.94% reported that the experience was either no different or more comfortable than the manual sampling. In economic terms, a single robot used to replace medical staff for sample collection becomes economically advantageous when the working time is ≥ 455 days. If multiple robots are used to replace twice the number of manual collections, it becomes more economical at 137 days and remains so as long as the robot is used. CONCLUSIONS: It appears safe and effective for robots to replace manual sampling method. Implementation of robotic sampling is economical and feasible, and can significantly save costs when working over a long term.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nucleic Acids , Robotics , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Cost-Benefit Analysis
14.
CMAJ Open ; 10(3): E807-E817, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2090865

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed. RESULTS: The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation. INTERPRETATION: From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adult , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , COVID-19/drug therapy , Canada , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans
15.
Vaccine ; 40(49): 7057-7064, 2022 Nov 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2082543

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) vaccination programme implementation, pneumococcal disease (PD) remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality among the elderly in Japan, particularly since childhood pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) vaccination programme continues to alter the serotype PD distribution among the elderly. Recently, in the United States, PCV15/PCV20 were recommended for adults aged ≥ 65 years and those aged 19-64 years with certain underlying conditions. In Japan, PCV15 is under the approval application process and PCV20 undergoing clinical trials, which has warranted the need in evaluating their value for money. METHODS: We conducted cost-effectiveness analyses with Markov model and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of PCV15/PCV20 vaccination programme compared to status quo from payers' perspective. Transition probabilities and utility weights in estimating quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and disease treatment costs were either estimated or obtained from literature. To reflect the situation of COVID-19 pandemic, epidemiological data from 2020 and beyond were used. RESULTS: Compared to the current vaccination programme, PCV20 vaccination programme gained more QALYs with less cost, while PCV15 vaccination programme cost ¥35,020 (US$318, US$1 = ¥110) to gain an additional QALY. Replacing PPSV23 vaccination programme with PCV20 vaccination programme is cost-saving. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that lower VE limits of PCVs against non-bacteremic pneumonia (NBP) have large impact to change the result from PCV20 vaccination programme dominated PPSV23 vaccination programme to PPSV23 vaccination programme dominated PCV20 vaccination programme. CONCLUSION: In the COVID-19 era, replacing current PPSV23 with a single-dose PCV15- or PCV20 immunisation programme for 65-year-old adults in Japan is highly cost-effective, while the PCV 20 vaccination programme was observed to be more favourable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumococcal Infections , Adult , Aged , Humans , Child , Vaccines, Conjugate , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Japan/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumococcal Vaccines , Pneumococcal Infections/epidemiology , Pneumococcal Infections/prevention & control , Vaccination
16.
PLoS One ; 17(10): e0274469, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2065120

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Long Covid is recognised as a complex condition characterised by multiple, interacting and fluctuating symptoms which impact everyday life in diverse ways. The extent of symptom clusters and variability supports interventions that can accommodate heterogeneity, such as personalised self-management support. This approach is also advocated by people living with long Covid and guidelines published by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support co-design and EvaluatioN (LISTEN) is one of 15 research projects funded by the UK's National Institute of Health Research long Covid research programme. LISTEN aims to work with people living with or recovered from long Covid to co-design self-management resources, and a training programme for rehabilitation practitioners to deliver personalised support. The intervention will focus on people not hospitalised for Covid. The protocol presented here details the co-design of the LISTEN intervention which, on completion, will be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: The study will utilise an Accelerated Experience-Based Co-Design approach, and involve 30 people from England and Wales with lived experience of long Covid, and 15 rehabilitation practitioners living with, or supporting people with, long Covid. Through online meetings, participants will share their stories of long Covid, their challenges and strategies to live better with or recover from long Covid, their priorities for self-management resources and the practitioner training andcreate, review and refine these resources and the training. Throughout, LISTEN will draw upon the UK standards of public involvement in research. DISCUSSION: If effective and cost-effective, the intervention will be available across the UK's National Health Service. The first of its kind, this study could make a difference to the lives of people with long Covid. To ensure impact, we have developed strategies to involve people from diverse backgrounds and mitigate potential barriers to involvement.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Self-Management , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , State Medicine , United Kingdom/epidemiology
17.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e064314, 2022 09 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2064170

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In the UK, National Health Service (NHS) guidelines recommend that informal carers of people living with dementia should be offered training to help them develop care skills and manage their own physical and mental health. The WHO recommends access to affordable, proven, well-designed, online technologies for education, skills training and support for dementia carers. In response to these recommendations, this multisite randomised controlled trial (RCT) is the first study in the UK to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online support programme developed by the WHO called 'iSupport for dementia carers'. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 350 informal carers (age 18+ years) living in Britain who self-identify as experiencing stress and depression will be recruited. They will be randomised to receive 'iSupport', or standardised information about caring for someone with dementia (control-comparison). Data will be collected via videoconferencing (eg, Zoom) or telephone interview at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Intention-to-treat analysis will ascertain effectiveness in the primary outcomes (distress and depression) and combined cost, and quality-adjusted life-year data will be used to assess cost-effectiveness compared with usual care from a public sector and wider societal perspective. A mixed-methods process evaluation with a subgroup of carers in the intervention (~N=50) will explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing 'iSupport'. A non-randomised feasibility study will adapt 'iSupport' for young carers (n=38 participants, age 11-17 years). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research plan was scrutinised by National Institute for Health Research reviewers ahead of funding being awarded. Ethical approval was granted by Bangor University's School of Health and Medical Sciences Academic Ethics Committee, reference number 2021-16915. Dissemination plans include delivering events for stakeholders, social media, a project website, developing policy briefings, presenting at conferences and producing articles for open access publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17420703.


Subject(s)
Dementia , Telemedicine , Adolescent , Caregivers/psychology , Child , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
18.
BMJ ; 378: o2367, 2022 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2064120
19.
PLoS One ; 17(9): e0270816, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2054312

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Interventions that can help streamline and reduce gaps in the tuberculosis (TB) care cascade can play crucial roles in TB prevention and care, but are often operationally complex and resource intensive, given the heterogenous settings in which they are implemented. In this study, we present a comparative analysis on cost-effectiveness of TB REACH Wave 5 projects with diverse programmatic objectives to inform future decisions regarding funding, strategic adoption, and scale-up. METHODS: We comprehensively reviewed project reports and financial statements from TB REACH Wave 5, a funding mechanism for interventions that aimed to strengthen the TB care cascade in diverse settings. Two independent reviewers abstracted cost (in 2017 US dollars) and key programmatic data, including project type (case-finding only; case-finding and linkage-to-care; or case-finding, linkage-to-care and patient support), operational setting (urban or rural), and project outputs (numbers of people with TB diagnosed, started on treatment, and successfully completing treatment). Cost-effectiveness ratios for each project were calculated as ratios of apportioned programmatic expenditures to corresponding project outputs. RESULTS: Of 32 case finding and patient support projects funded through TB REACH Wave 5, 29 were included for analysis (11 case-finding only; 9 case-finding and linkage-to-care; and 9 case-finding, linkage-to-care and patient support). 21 projects (72%) were implemented in either Africa or Southeast Asia, and 19 (66%) focused on serving urban areas. Average cost-effectiveness was $184 per case diagnosed (range: $30-$10,497), $332 per diagnosis and treatment initiation ($123-$10,608), and $40 per patient treatment supported ($8-$160). Cost per case diagnosed was lower for case-finding-only projects ($132) than projects including linkage-to-care ($342) or linkage-to-care and patient support ($254), and generally increased with the corresponding country's per-capita GDP ($543 per $1000 increase, 95% confidence interval: -$53, $1138). CONCLUSION: The costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions to strengthen the TB care cascade were heterogenous, reflecting differences in context and programmatic objective. Nevertheless, many such interventions are likely to offer good value for money. Systematic collection and analysis of cost-effectiveness data can help improve comparability, monitoring, and evaluation.


Subject(s)
Tuberculosis , Africa , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Rural Population , Tuberculosis/diagnosis , Tuberculosis/drug therapy , Tuberculosis/prevention & control
20.
Eur Psychiatry ; 65(1): e56, 2022 08 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2054015

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: DIALOG+ is a digital psychosocial intervention aimed at making routine meetings between patients and clinicians therapeutically effective. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing DIALOG+ treatment for patients with psychotic disorders in five low- and middle-income countries in Southeast Europe alongside a cluster randomised trial. METHODS: Resource use and quality of life data were collected alongside the multi-country cluster randomised trial of 468 participants with psychotic disorders. Due to COVID-19 interruptions of the trial's original 12-month intervention period, adjusted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated at the participant level using a mixed-effects model over the first 6 months only. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with uncertainty presented using a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Seven sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: The average cost of delivering DIALOG+ was €91.11 per participant. DIALOG+ was associated with an incremental health gain of 0.0032 QALYs (95% CI -0.0015, 0.0079), incremental costs of €84.17 (95% CI -8.18, 176.52), and an estimated ICER of €26,347.61. The probability of DIALOG+ being cost-effective against three times the weighted gross domestic product (GDP) per capita for the five participating countries was 18.9%. CONCLUSION: Evidence from the cost-effectiveness analyses in this study suggested that DIALOG+ involved relatively low costs. However, it is not likely to be cost-effective in the five participating countries compared with standard care against a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times the weighted GDP per capita per QALY gained.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychotic Disorders , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Developing Countries , Europe , Humans , Psychosocial Intervention , Psychotic Disorders/therapy , Quality of Life
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL