Health benefit and economic impact of utilising ECMO in COVID-19 patients: patient or cost first.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Butt S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9929785 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Health benefit and economic impact of utilising ECMO in COVID-19 patients: patient or cost first.
Butt Sundas S Shankar Meera M Amien Bothayna B Fedevici Oleg O Harky Amer A
Annals of translational medicine 20230113 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundVaccination has been a key part of Canada's coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic response. Although the clinical benefits of vaccination are clear, an understanding of the population-level benefits of vaccination relative to the programmatic costs is of value. The objective of this article is to quantify the economic impact of COVID-19 vaccination in the Canadian population between December 2020 and March 2022.MethodsWe conducted a model-based cost-benefit analysis of Canada's COVID-19 vaccination program. We used an epidemiological model to estimate the number of COVID-19 symptomatic cases, hospitalizations, post-COVID condition (PCC) cases, and deaths in the presence and absence of vaccination. Median, lower and upper 95% credible interval (95% CrI) outcome values from 100 model simulations were used to estimate the direct and indirect costs of illness, including the value of health. We used a societal perspective and a 1.5% discount rate.ResultsWe estimated that the costs of the vaccination program were far outweighed by the savings associated with averted infections and associated downstream consequences. Vaccination increased the net benefit by CAD $298.1 billion (95% CrI: 27.2-494.6) compared to the no vaccination counterfactual. The largest benefits were due to averted premature mortality, resulting in an estimated $222.0 billion (95% CrI: 31.2-379.0) benefit.ConclusionOur model-based economic evaluation provides a retrospective assessment of COVID-19 vaccination during the first 16 months of the program in Canada and suggests that it was welfare-improving, considering the decreased hospitalizations and use of healthcare resources, deaths averted and lower morbidity from conditions such as PCC.
| S-EPMC10911688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) is an important cause of mortality and production loss among sheep and goats in the developing world. Despite control efforts in a number of countries, it has continued to spread across Africa and Asia, placing an increasing burden on the livelihoods of livestock keepers and on veterinary resources in affected countries. Given the similarities between PPR and rinderpest, and the lessons learned from the successful global eradication of rinderpest, the eradication of PPR seems appealing, both eliminating an important disease and improving the livelihoods of the poor in developing countries. We conducted a benefit-cost analysis to examine the economic returns from a proposed programme for the global eradication of PPR. Based on our knowledge and experience, we developed the eradication strategy and estimated its costs. The benefits of the programme were determined from (i) the averted mortality costs, based on an analysis of the literature, (ii) the downstream impact of reduced mortality using a social accounting matrix, and (iii) the avoided control costs based on current levels of vaccination. The results of the benefit-cost analysis suggest strong economic returns from PPR eradication. Based on a 15-year programme with total discounted costs of US$2.26 billion, we estimate discounted benefits of US$76.5 billion, yielding a net benefit of US$74.2 billion. This suggests a benefit cost ratio of 33.8, and an internal rate of return (IRR) of 199%. As PPR mortality rates are highly variable in different populations, we conducted a sensitivity analysis based on lower and higher mortality scenarios. All the scenarios examined indicate that investment in PPR eradication would be highly beneficial economically. Furthermore, removing one of the major constraints to small ruminant production would be of considerable benefit to many of the most vulnerable communities in Africa and Asia.
| S-EPMC4764769 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10695403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The international community has been put in an unprecedented situation by the COVID-19 pandemic. Creating models to describe and quantify alternative mitigation strategies becomes increasingly urgent. In this study, we propose an agent-based model of disease transmission in a society divided into closely connected families, workplaces, and social groups. This allows us to discuss mitigation strategies, including targeted quarantine measures. We find that workplace and more diffuse social contacts are roughly equally important to disease spread, and that an effective lockdown must target both. We examine the cost-benefit of replacing a lockdown with tracing and quarantining contacts of the infected. Quarantine can contribute substantially to mitigation, even if it has short duration and is done within households. When reopening society, testing and quarantining is a strategy that is much cheaper in terms of lost workdays than a long lockdown. A targeted quarantine strategy is quite efficient with only 5 days of quarantine, and its effect increases when testing is more widespread.
| S-EPMC7596701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCOVID-19 surveillance in congregate settings is important to mitigating disease, but the health and economic impact of testing remains unclear.MethodsThe authors developed a Markov model to project the cost-utility of COVID-19 testing strategies in homeless shelters from the healthcare payer and societal perspective over 1 year. Model inputs utilized data from residents aged ≥18 years across 23 Seattle shelters from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. No in-shelter surveillance was compared with scenarios of 2 COVID-19 testing strategies implemented monthly: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and rapid antigen testing; scenarios in which only PCR testing was available were also evaluated. The primary health outcome was quality-adjusted life years. Interventions were considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was ≤$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year and dominant if they saved costs and provided health effects.ResultsWhen assuming the availability of both antigen and PCR tests, most rapid antigen testing strategies were cost-effective, whereas PCR testing was dominated by antigen testing. Compared with no in-shelter surveillance, antigen testing increased mean quality-adjusted life years by 0.0009 (0.03% infections averted) at an incremental cost of $97/resident from the healthcare perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio=$112,352/quality-adjusted life year gained) and $8/resident from the societal perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio=$9,627/quality-adjusted life year gained) at 75% vaccination coverage. PCR testing was not cost-effective when antigen testing was available but was cost-effective compared with no surveillance at low vaccination coverage levels (<30% coverage from the healthcare perspective and ≤48% coverage from the societal perspective). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that antigen testing was cost-effective in 62% and 86% of simulations from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively.ConclusionsModeled findings show that COVID-19 testing in shelters can be a cost-effective pandemic response. Antigen testing remained cost-effective at high vaccination levels, whereas PCR testing was most effective at low vaccination levels if antigen testing was not available.
| S-EPMC11889550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mood effects on economic choice seem blatantly irrational, but might rise from mechanisms adapted to natural environments. We have proposed a theory in which mood helps adapting the behaviour to statistical dependencies in the environment, by biasing the expected value of foraging actions (which involve taking risk, spending time and making effort to get more reward). Here, we tested the existence of this mechanism, using an established mood induction paradigm combined with independent economic choices that opposed small but uncostly rewards to larger but costly rewards (involving either risk, delay or effort). To maximise the sensitivity to mood fluctuations, we developed an algorithm ensuring that choice options were continuously adjusted to subjective indifference points. In 102 participants tested twice, we found that during episodes of positive mood (relative to negative mood), choices were biased towards better rewarded but costly options, irrespective of the cost type. Computational modelling confirmed that the incidental mood effect was best explained by a bias added to the expected value of costly options, prior to decision making. This bias is therefore automatically applied even in artificial environments where it is not adaptive, allowing mood to spill over many sorts of decisions and generate irrational behaviours.
| S-EPMC10598198 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the beginning of the COVID-19 US epidemic in March 2020, sweeping lockdowns and other aggressive measures were put in place and retained in many states until end of August of 2020; the ensuing economic downturn has led many to question the wisdom of the early COVID-19 policy measures in the US. This study's objective was to evaluate the cost and benefit of the US COVID-19-mitigating policy intervention during the first six month of the pandemic in terms of COVID-19 mortality potentially averted, versus mortality potentially attributable to the economic downturn. We conducted a synthesis-based retrospective cost-benefit analysis of the full complex of US federal, state, and local COVID-19-mitigating measures, including lockdowns and all other COVID-19-mitigating measures, against the counterfactual scenario involving no public health intervention. We derived parameter estimates from a rapid review and synthesis of recent epidemiologic studies and economic literature on regulation-attributable mortality. According to our estimates, the policy intervention saved 866,350-1,711,150 lives (4,886,214-9,650,886 quality-adjusted life-years), while mortality attributable to the economic downturn was 57,922-245,055 lives (2,093,811-8,858,444 life-years). We conclude that the number of lives saved by the spring-summer lockdowns and other COVID-19-mitigation was greater than the number of lives potentially lost due to the economic downturn. However, the net impact on quality-adjusted life expectancy is ambiguous.
| S-EPMC8782469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) has infected over two hundred million worldwide and caused 4.4 million of deaths as of August 2021. Vaccines were quickly developed to address the pandemic. We sought to analyze the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a non-specified vaccine for COVID-19.Materials and methodsWe constructed a Markov model of COVID-19 infections using a susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered structure over a 1-year time horizon from a U.S. healthcare sector perspective. The model consisted of two arms: do nothing and COVID-19 vaccine. Hospitalization and mortality rates were calibrated to U.S. COVID-19 reports as of November 2020. We performed economic calculations of costs in 2020 U.S. dollars and effectiveness in units of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to measure the budget impact and incremental cost-effectiveness at a $100,000/QALY threshold.ResultsVaccines have a high probability of reducing healthcare costs and increasing QALYs compared to doing nothing. Simulations showed reductions in hospital days and mortality by more than 50%. Even though this represents a major U.S. investment, the budget impacts of these technologies could save program costs by up to 60% or more if uptake is high.LimitationsThe economic evaluation draws on the reported values of the clinical benefits of COVID-19 vaccines, although we do not currently have long-term conclusive data about COVID-19 vaccine efficacies.ConclusionsSpending on vaccines to mitigate COVID-19 infections offer high-value potential that society should consider. Unusually high uptake in vaccines in a short amount of time could result in unprecedented budget impacts to government and commercial payers. Governments should focus on expanding health system infrastructure and subsidizing payer coverage to deliver these vaccines efficiently.
| S-EPMC9897209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn response to the coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Japanese government declared a state of emergency on April 7, 2020. Six days earlier, the Japan Surgical Society had recommended postponing elective surgical procedures. Along with the growing public fear of COVID-19, hospital visits in Japan decreased.MethodsUsing claims data from the Quality Indicator/Improvement Project (QIP) database, this study aimed to clarify the impact of the first wave of the pandemic, considered to be from March to May 2020, on case volume and claimed hospital charges in acute care hospitals during this period. To make year-over-year comparisons, we considered cases from July 2018 to June 2020.ResultsA total of 2,739,878 inpatient and 53,479,658 outpatient cases from 195 hospitals were included. In the year-over-year comparisons, total claimed hospital charges decreased in April, May, June 2020 by 7%, 14%, and 5%, respectively, compared to the same months in 2019. Our results also showed that per-case hospital charges increased during this period, possibly to compensate for the reduced case volumes. Regression results indicated that the hospital charges in April and May 2020 decreased by 6.3% for hospitals without COVID-19 patients. For hospitals with COVID-19 patients, there was an additional decrease in proportion with the length of hospital stay of COVID-19 patients including suspected cases. The mean additional decrease per COVID-19 patient was estimated to 5.5 million JPY.ConclusionIt is suggested that the hospitals treating COVID-19 patients were negatively incentivized.
| S-EPMC7775082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An effective (early) mobilization in COVID-19 intensive care patients with ECMO treatment is very important. Sedation, extracorporeal procedures with the danger of circuit malfunction, large lumen ECMO cannulas with a risk of dislocation and a very severe neuromuscular weakness are factors that could deem mobilization beyond stage 1 of the ICU mobility score (IMS) in some cases difficult or impossible; however, early mobilization is a key point of the ABCDEF bundle to counteract pulmonary complications, neuromuscular dysfunction and enable recovery. The case of a 53-year-old, previously healthy and active male patient with a severe and complicated course of COVID-19 and pronounced ICU-acquired weakness is described. While receiving ECMO the patient could be mobilized using a robotic system. Due to severe and rapidly progressing pulmonary fibrosis, additional low-dose methylprednisolone therapy (Meduri protocol) was implemented. Under this multimodal treatment the patient was successfully weaned from the ventilator and decannulated. Robotic-assisted mobilization has the potential to be a novel and safe therapeutic option for a customized and highly effective mobilization in ECMO patients.
| S-EPMC9510451 | biostudies-literature