Dataset Information

Comparing swab- and different symptoms-based strategies to ascertain COVID-19 recovery in healthcare workers: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Given the human and economic cost of the COVID-19 pandemic, protecting healthcare workers (HCW) and ensuring continuity of care is critical. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies to ascertain COVID-19 recovery in HCWs.

Methods

Data were collected from the hospital health surveillance program on HCWs at the University Hospital of Verona between 29/02/2020 and 14/04/2021. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the assessment of the recovery were made through RT-PCR on oro-nasopharyngeal swab-sample. Recovery time and probability were estimated through Kaplan-Meier estimate. For each recovery assessment strategy costs (laboratory diagnostics and human resources), expressed in local currency (euro-€), and working days saved (WDS-effectiveness) were estimated. A decision-tree was created where each knot was a time point scheduled by the different recovery assessment strategies. A Monte Carlo simulation method was used, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed the effect of input uncertainty.

Results

In the study period 916 (9.9%) HCWs tested positive. Recovery time through symptom-based strategy (21 days 0.95 CI 16-24) was significantly lower compared to swab-based one (25 days 0.95 CI 23-28, p < 0.001). The swab-based strategy was dominated by all symptoms-based ones. Symptoms-based with a swab on days 14 and 17 had an ICER of 2 €/WDS and 27 €/WDS compared to the one scheduled on days 10 and 17 and with only one swab on the 17th day.

Conclusions

Scheduling swabs on days 14 and 17 in a symptom-based strategy was the most cost-effective, saving 7.5 more working days than the standard one with swabs on days 10 and 17.

SUBMITTER: Benoni R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9465662 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing swab- and different symptoms-based strategies to ascertain COVID-19 recovery in healthcare workers: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Benoni Roberto R Campagna Irene I Moretti Francesca F Tardivo Stefano S

Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E 20220912 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Given the human and economic cost of the COVID-19 pandemic, protecting healthcare workers (HCW) and ensuring continuity of care is critical. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies to ascertain COVID-19 recovery in HCWs.<h4>Methods</h4>Data were collected from the hospital health surveillance program on HCWs at the University Hospital of Verona between 29/02/2020 and 14/04/2021. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the assessment ...[more]

PMID: 36096794

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic is putting a huge strain on the provision and continuity of care. The length of sickness absence of the healthcare workers as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection plays a pivotal role in hospital staff management. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the timing of COVID-19 recovery and viral clearance, and its predictive factors, in a large sample of healthcare workers.Study designThis is a retrospective cohort study.MethodsThe analysis was conducted on data collected during the hospital health surveillance programme for healthcare staff at the University Hospital of Verona; healthcare workers were tested for SARS-CoV-2 through RT-PCR with oronasopharyngeal swab samples. The health surveillance programme targeted healthcare workers who either had close contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected patients or were tested as part of the screening-based strategy implemented according to national and regional requirements. Recovery time was estimated from the first positive swab to two consecutive negative swabs, collected 24 h apart, using survival analysis for both right-censored and interval-censored data. Cox proportional hazard was used for multivariate analysis.ResultsDuring the health surveillance programme, 6455 healthcare workers were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 248 (3.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4-4.3) reported positive results; among those who tested positive, 49% were asymptomatic, with a median age of 39.8 years, which is significantly younger than symptomatic healthcare workers (48.2 years, P < 0.001). Screening tests as part of the health surveillance programme identified 31 (12.5%) of the positive cases. Median recovery time was 24 days (95% CI: 23-26) and 21.5 days (95% CI: 15.5-30.5) in right- and interval-censoring analysis, respectively, with no association with age, sex or presence of symptoms. Overall, 63% of participants required >20 days to test negative on two consecutive swabs. Hospitalised healthcare workers (4.8%) were older and had a significantly longer recovery time compared with non-hospitalised healthcare workers in both analyses (33.5 vs 24 days, P = 0.005).ConclusionsRecovery from COVID-19 and viral clearance may take a long time, especially in individuals who are hospitalised. To detect asymptomatic cases, screening programmes for healthcare workers is recommended.

Project description:IntroductionJapanese encephalitis (JE) is a mosquito-borne viral infection of the brain that can cause permanent brain damage and death. In the Philippines, efforts are underway to deliver a live attenuated JE vaccine (CD-JEV) to children under five years of age (YOA), who are disproportionately infected. Multiple vaccination strategies are being considered.MethodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing three vaccination strategies to the current state of no vaccination from the societal and government perspectives: (1) national routine vaccination only, (2) sub-national campaign followed by national routine, and (3) national campaign followed by national routine. We developed a Markov model to estimate impact of vaccination or no vaccination over the child's lifetime horizon, assuming an annual incidence of 10.6 cases per 100,000. Costs of illness ($859/case), vaccine ($0.50/dose), routine vaccination ($0.95/dose), and campaign vaccination ($0.98/dose) were based on hospital financial records, expert opinion and literature. The societal perspective included transportation and opportunity costs of caregiver time, in addition to costs incurred by the health system.ResultsJE vaccination via national campaign followed by national routine delivery was the most cost-effective strategy modeled with a cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted of $233 and $29 from the government and societal perspectives, respectively. Results were similar for other delivery strategies with cost/DALY ranging from $233 to $265 from the government perspective and $29-$57 from the societal perspective. JE vaccination was projected to prevent 27,856-37,277 cases, 5571-7455 deaths, and 173,233-230,704 DALYs among children under five over 20 consecutive birth cohorts. Total incremental costs of vaccination versus no vaccination over 20 birth cohorts were $6.6-$9.8 million from the societal perspective ($230 K-$440 K annually) and $45.9-$53.9 million ($2.2 M-$2.7 M annually) from the governmental perspective.ConclusionVaccination with CD-JEV in the Philippines is projected to be cost-effective, reducing long-term costs associated with JE illness and improving health outcomes compared to no vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac arrest is a major public health issue in Europe. Cardiac arrest seems to be associated with a large socioeconomic burden in terms of resource utilization and health care costs. The aim of this study is the analysis of the economic burden of cardiac arrest in Spain and a cost-effectiveness analysis of the key intervention identified, especially in relation to neurological outcome at discharge.MethodsThe data comes from the information provided by 115 intensive care and cardiology units from Spain, including information on the care of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who had a return of spontaneous circulation. The information reported by theses 115 units was collected by a nationwide survey conducted between March and September 2020. Along with number of patients (2631), we also collect information about the structure of the units, temperature management, and prognostication assessments. In this study we analyze the potential association of several factors with neurological outcome at discharge, and the cost associated with the different factors. The cost-effectiveness of using servo-control for temperature management is analyzed by means of a decision model, based on the results of the survey and data collected in the literature, for a one-year and a lifetime time horizon.ResultsA total of 109 cardiology units provided results on neurological outcome at discharge as evaluated with the cerebral performance category (CPC). The most relevant factor associated with neurological outcome at discharge was 'servo-control use', showing a 12.8% decrease in patients with unfavorable neurological outcomes (i.e., CPC3-4 vs. CPC1-2). The total cost per patient (2020 Euros) was €73,502. Only "servo-control use" was associated with an increased mean total cost per hospital. Patients treated with servo-control for temperature management gained in the short term (1 year) an average of 0.039 QALYs over those who were treated with other methods at an increased cost of €70.8, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1,808 euros. For a lifetime time horizon, the use of servo-control is both more effective and less costly than the alternative.ConclusionsOur results suggest the implementation of servo-control techniques in all the units that are involved in managing the cardiac arrest patient from admission until discharge from hospital to minimize the neurological damage to patients and to reduce costs to the health and social security system.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost effectiveness of soft tissue injury management by emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) compared with the routine care provided by doctors in an emergency department (ED).DesignRandomised, pragmatic trial of equivalence.SettingA single ED in England.Participants372 patients were randomised, 126 to the ESP group, 123 to the ENP group and 123 to the doctor group. Participants were adults (16 years and older) presenting to the ED with a peripheral soft tissue injury eligible for management by any of the three professional groups.InterventionsPatients were randomised to treatment by an ESP, ENP or routine care provided by doctors (of all grades).Main outcome measuresEconomic cost-minimisation evaluation from a funder perspective of the National Health Service, England incorporating analysis of the direct, indirect and tangible costs of care in primary and secondary settings.ResultsFrom a funder perspective in primary and secondary care, ESPs and ENPs are at best equivalent and could not cost less than routine care. Uncertainty in cost arises from ESPs and ENPs incurring greater indirect costs, such as those associated with follow-up appointments and subsequent primary care visits. Comparison from a funder perspective in secondary care, that is, considering those costs incurred in secondary care alone, demonstrates that ENPs are equivalent in cost to routine care, while ESPs are either equivalent or possibly cheaper than routine care.ConclusionsThese results question the notion that training the healthcare workforce to undertake extensions of their role is generally cost effective. While the randomised trial indicated that the three professional groups have equivalent clinical outcomes, this economic analysis suggests that substitution of routine care with a predominantly ESP or ENP workforce could prove more expensive. Further research is required to understand the underlying reasons for this. The trial has been registered with ISRCTN-ISRCTN 70891354.

Dataset Information

Comparing swab- and different symptoms-based strategies to ascertain COVID-19 recovery in healthcare workers: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing swab- and different symptoms-based strategies to ascertain COVID-19 recovery in healthcare workers: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets