How Expensive Are Hospitalizations by COVID-19? Evidence From Colombia.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the direct medical costs due to hospitalizations by COVID-19 in Colombia and to identify their cost drivers in Colombia. METHODS: This is a retrospective cost-of-illness study of COVID-19 in Colombia. We estimated direct medical costs using data from patients insured to a Benefit Plan Administrator Company, between March 15, 2020 and May 29, 2020. Absolute and relative frequencies, averages, medians, and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were used to characterize the population and estimate the costs of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We stratified the cost analysis by sex, age groups, comorbidities, and type of hospitalization (general ward and intensive care unit [ICU]). Cost drivers were calculated from a generalized linear model. RESULTS: We studied 113 confirmed patients, 51.3% men. On average, the hospital length of stay was 7.3 (± 6.2) days. A person hospitalized with COVID-19 reported median costs of $1688 (IQR 788-2523). In women, this cost was $1328 (IQR 463-2098); in men, this was 1.4 times greater. The median cost for ICU was $4118 (IQR 2069-5455), 3 times higher than those hospitalized only in the general ward. Admission to the ICU, having 1 comorbidity, length of stay, high blood pressure, having 5 comorbidities, and being treated in the city of Cartagena were statistically significant with direct medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an idea of the magnitude of costs needed to hospitalize a COVID-19 case in Colombia. Other studies in Colombia have assessed the costs of hospitalization for infectious diseases such as influenza, costs significantly lower than those described here.

Mortality risk prediction with an updated Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score in critically ill obstetric patients: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score has shown low prognostic ability to predict death in the obstetric population. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether an updated form of the APACHE II score would perform better in predicting mortality in critically ill obstetric patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of pregnant and postpartum women (up to 42 days after delivery) who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) was carried out at an ICU at Rafael Calvo Maternity Hospital, a large obstetric hospital in Colombia. Data were collected on consecutive obstetric patients admitted to the ICU between 2006 and 2011. A discrimination and calibration analysis was completed on the original APACHE II score and an updated APACHE II score. RESULTS: Data were collected on a total of 726 obstetric patients. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.80-0.93) for both APACHE II and the updated APACHE II scores. Mortality ratio for the original APACHE II was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.19-0.41) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.56-1.24) for the updated APACHE II. CONCLUSIONS: The APACHE II overestimates mortality in the sample population. The updated APACHE II model predicts mortality more accurately in the obstetric population. This formula may be useful in adapting the existing APACHE II to current mortality risk in obstetric critical care populations.

Comparison of severity-of-illness scores in critically ill obstetric patients: a 6-year retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to evaluate the discrimination and calibration of mortality prediction of Simplified Acute Physiology Score 2, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, Mortality Probability Model II, and Mortality Probability Model III in peripartum women. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Rafael Calvo Maternity Hospital, a large teaching hospital in Cartagena (Colombia). PATIENTS: All obstetric patients admitted to the ICU from 2006 to 2011. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seven hundred twenty-six obstetric critical care patients were included. All scores showed good discrimination (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve > 0.86). Simplified Acute Physiology Score 2, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, and Mortality Probability Model III inaccurately estimated mortality. The only mortality prediction score that showed good calibration through mortality ratio and Hosmer-Lemeshow test was Mortality Probability Model II. Mortality ratio for Mortality Probability Model II was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.60-1.25). Hosmer-Lemeshow test was not significant (p = 0.571). CONCLUSIONS: Simplified Acute Physiology Score 2 and Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 overestimate mortality in obstetric critical care patients. Mortality Probability Model III was inadequately calibrated. Mortality Probability Model II showed good fit to predict mortality in a developing country setting. Future studies in developed and developing countries are needed to further confirm our findings.