A Cost-Utility Analysis of Remote Pulse-Oximetry Monitoring of Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Since 2020, COVID-19 has infected tens of millions and caused hundreds of thousands of fatalities in the United States. Infection waves lead to increased emergency department utilization and critical care admission for patients with respiratory distress. Although many individuals develop symptoms necessitating a ventilator, some patients with COVID-19 can remain at home to mitigate hospital overcrowding. Remote pulse-oximetry (pulse-ox) monitoring of moderately ill patients with COVID-19 can be used to monitor symptom escalation and trigger hospital visits, as needed. METHODS: We analyzed the cost-utility of remote pulse-ox monitoring using a Markov model with a 3-week time horizon and daily cycles from a US health sector perspective. Costs (US dollar 2020) and outcomes were derived from the University Hospitals' real-world evidence and published literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY. We assessed model uncertainty using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Model results demonstrated that remote monitoring dominates current standard care, by reducing costs ($11 472 saved) and improving outcomes (0.013 QALYs gained). There were 87% fewer hospitalizations and 77% fewer deaths among patients with access to remote pulse-ox monitoring. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not sensitive to uncertainty ranges in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Patient with COVID-19 remote pulse-ox monitoring increases the specificity of those requiring follow-up care for escalating symptoms. We recommend remote monitoring adoption across health systems to economically manage COVID-19 volume surges, maintain patients' comfort, reduce community infection spread, and carefully monitor needs of multiple individuals from one location by trained experts.

Remote Patient Monitoring During COVID-19: An Unexpected Patient Safety Benefit.

This Viewpoint explains how some hospitals used home monitoring of pulse oximetry during the COVID-19 pandemic to avoid patient overcrowding and control high patient to staff ratios and how increased use of home monitoring for other vital signs could potentially improve patient safety and decrease costs.

Sex, age, and hospitalization drive antibody responses in a COVID-19 convalescent plasma donor population.

Convalescent plasma is a leading treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but there is a paucity of data identifying its therapeutic efficacy. Among 126 potential convalescent plasma donors, the humoral immune response was evaluated using a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus neutralization assay with Vero-E6-TMPRSS2 cells; a commercial IgG and IgA ELISA to detect the spike (S) protein S1 domain (EUROIMMUN); IgA, IgG, and IgM indirect ELISAs to detect the full-length S protein or S receptor-binding domain (S-RBD); and an IgG avidity assay. We used multiple linear regression and predictive models to assess the correlations between antibody responses and demographic and clinical characteristics. IgG titers were greater than either IgM or IgA titers for S1, full-length S, and S-RBD in the overall population. Of the 126 plasma samples, 101 (80%) had detectable neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers. Using nAb titers as the reference, the IgG ELISAs confirmed 95%-98% of the nAb-positive samples, but 20%-32% of the nAb-negative samples were still IgG ELISA positive. Male sex, older age, and hospitalization for COVID-19 were associated with increased antibody responses across the serological assays. There was substantial heterogeneity in the antibody response among potential convalescent plasma donors, but sex, age, and hospitalization emerged as factors that can be used to identify individuals with a high likelihood of having strong antiviral antibody responses.