Screening for primary aldosteronism in the hypertensive obstructive sleep apnea population is cost-saving.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend screening for primary aldosteronism in patients diagnosed with hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea. Recent studies have shown that adherence to these recommendations is extremely low. It has been suggested that cost is a barrier to implementation. No analysis has been done to rigorously evaluate the cost-effectiveness of widespread implementation of these guidelines. METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model to evaluate screening of the hypertensive obstructive sleep apnea population for primary aldosteronism as per guideline recommendations in comparison with current rates of screening. Probabilities, utility values, and costs were identified in the literature. Threshold and sensitivity analyses assessed robustness of the model. Costs were represented in 2020 US dollars and health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years. The model assumed a societal perspective with a lifetime time horizon. RESULTS: Screening per guideline recommendations had an expected cost of $47,016 and 35.27 quality-adjusted life-years. Continuing at current rates of screening had an expected cost of $48,350 and 34.86 quality-adjusted life-years. Screening was dominant, as it was both less costly and more effective. These results were robust to sensitivity analysis of disease prevalence, test sensitivity, patient age, and expected outcome of medical or surgical treatment of primary aldosteronism. The screening strategy remained cost-effective even if screening were conservatively presumed to identify only 3% of new primary aldosteronism cases. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea, rigorous screening for primary aldosteronism is cost-saving due to cardiovascular risk averted. Cost should not be a barrier to improving primary aldosteronism screening adherence.

Flattening the curve before it flattens us: hospital critical care capacity limits and mortality from novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) cases in US counties

BackgroundAs of March 26, 2020, the United States had the highest number of confirmed cases of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) of any country in the world. Hospital critical care is perhaps the most important medical system choke point in terms of preventing deaths in a disaster scenario such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. We therefore brought together previously established disease modeling estimates of the growth of the COVID-19 epidemic in the US under various social distancing contact reduction assumptions, with local estimates of the potential critical care surge response across all US counties. MethodsEstimates of spatio-temporal COVID-19 demand and medical system critical care supply were calculated for all continental US counties. These estimates were statistically summarized and mapped for US counties, regions and urban versus non-urban areas. Estimates of COVID-19 infections and patients needing critical care were calculated from March 24, 2020 to April 24, 2020 for three different estimated population levels - 0%, 25%, and 50% - of contact reduction (through actions such as social distancing). Multiple national public and private datasets were linked and harmonized in order to calculate county-level critical care bed counts that included currently available beds and those that could be made available under four surge response scenarios - very low, low, medium, and high - as well as excess deaths stemming from inaccessible critical care. ResultsSurge response scenarios ranged from a very low total supply 77,588 critical care beds to a high total of 278,850 critical care beds. Over the four week study period, excess deaths from inaccessible critical care ranged from 24,688 in the very low response scenario to 13,268 in the high response scenario. Northeastern and urban counties were projected to be most affected by excess deaths due to critical care shortages, and counties in New York, Colorado, and Virginia were projected to exceed their critical care bed limits despite high levels of COVID-19 contact reduction. Over the four week study period, an estimated 12,203-19,594 excess deaths stemming from inaccessible critical care could be averted through greater preventive actions such as travel restrictions, publicly imposed contact precautions, greater availability of rapid testing for COVID-19, social distancing, self-isolation when sick, and similar interventions. An estimated 4,029-11,420 excess deaths stemming from inaccessible critical care could be averted through aggressive critical care surge response and preparations, including high clearance of ICU and non-ICU critical care beds and extraordinary measures like using a single ventilator for multiple patients. ConclusionsUnless the epidemic curve of COVID-19 cases is flattened over an extended period of time, the US COVID-19 epidemic will cause a shortage of critical care beds and drive up otherwise preventable deaths. The findings here support value of preventive actions to flatten the epidemic curve, as well as the value of exercising extraordinary surge capacity measures to increase access to hospital critical care for severely ill COVID-19 patients.