Dataset Information

The aftermath of SARS-CoV-2 in NICU: saving or checking accounts? Projected cost-effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT: In the aftermath of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we revised the cost-effectiveness of the exploited interventions in neonatal intensive care unit, to redefine future strategies for hospital management. Costs were revised with respect to the lockdown R0 or under different R0 scenarios to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the screening program adopted. Weekly nasopharyngeal swabs for parents, neonates, and personnel were the major cost during the pandemic, although they effectively reduced the number of cases in our unit.Conclusion: Parents and healthcare personnel testing appears to be an effective strategy due to the high number of contact they have within the hospital environment and outside, able to minimize the cases within our unit. What is Known: • Costs of universal COVID-19 tests for parents, neonates, and NICU personnel have not been evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic in neonatal intensive care unit in Europe. What is New: • Weekly nasopharyngeal swabs for parents, neonates, and personnel were the major cost during the COVID-19 pandemic in NICU. • Parents and healthcare personnel testing was effective to reduce costs related to COVID-19 due to the high number of contact they have within the hospital environment and outside.

SUBMITTER: Galderisi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7790311 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The aftermath of SARS-CoV-2 in NICU: saving or checking accounts? Projected cost-effectiveness analysis.

Galderisi Alfonso A Lolli Elisabetta E Cavicchiolo Maria Elena ME Bonadies Luca L Trevisanuto Daniele D Baraldi Eugenio E

European journal of pediatrics 20210107 5

In the aftermath of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we revised the cost-effectiveness of the exploited interventions in neonatal intensive care unit, to redefine future strategies for hospital management. Costs were revised with respect to the lockdown R0 or under different R0 scenarios to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the screening program adopted. Weekly nasopharyngeal swabs for parents, neonates, and personnel were the major cost during the pandemic, although they effectively reduced the number ...[more]

PMID: 33415468

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, countries worldwide have enacted unprecedented movement restrictions, physical distancing measures, and face mask requirements. Until safe and efficacious vaccines or antiviral drugs become widely available, viral testing remains the primary mitigation measure for rapid identification and isolation of infected individuals. We aimed to assess the economic trade-offs of expanding and accelerating testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) across the USA in different transmission scenarios.MethodsWe used a multiscale model that incorporates SARS-CoV-2 transmission at the population level and daily viral load dynamics at the individual level to assess eight surveillance testing strategies that varied by testing frequency (from daily to monthly testing) and isolation period (1 or 2 weeks), compared with the status-quo strategy of symptom-based testing and isolation. For each testing strategy, we first estimated the costs (incorporating costs of diagnostic testing and admissions to hospital, and salary lost while in isolation) and years of life lost (YLLs) prevented under rapid and low transmission scenarios. We then assessed the testing strategies across a range of scenarios, each defined by effective reproduction number (Re), willingness to pay per YLL averted, and cost of a test, to estimate the probability that a particular strategy had the greatest net benefit. Additionally, for a range of transmission scenarios (Re from 1·1 to 3), we estimated a threshold test price at which the status-quo strategy outperforms all testing strategies considered.FindingsOur modelling showed that daily testing combined with a 2-week isolation period was the most costly strategy considered, reflecting increased costs with greater test frequency and length of isolation period. Assuming a societal willingness to pay of US$100 000 per YLL averted and a price of $5 per test, the strategy most likely to be cost-effective under a rapid transmission scenario (Re of 2·2) is weekly testing followed by a 2-week isolation period subsequent to a positive test result. Under low transmission scenarios (Re of 1·2), monthly testing of the population followed by 1-week isolation rather than 2-week isolation is likely to be most cost-effective. Expanded surveillance testing is more likely to be cost-effective than the status-quo testing strategy if the price per test is less than $75 across all transmission rates considered.InterpretationExtensive expansion of SARS-CoV-2 testing programmes with more frequent and rapid tests across communities coupled with isolation of individuals with confirmed infection is essential for mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, resources recouped from shortened isolation duration could be cost-effectively allocated to more frequent testing.FundingUS National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Love, Tito's.

Project description:BackgroundCost-effectiveness analysis provides a crucial means for evidence-informed decision-making on resource allocation. This study aims to elicit individuals' willingness to pay (WTP) for one additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from life-saving treatment and associated factors in Kermanshah city, western Iran.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study on a total of 847 adults aged 18 years and above to elicit their WTP for one additional QALY gained by oneself and a family member using a hypothetical life-saving treatment. We used a multistage sampling technique to select the samples, and the Iranian version of EQ-5D-3L, and visual analogue scale (VAS) measures to obtain the participants' health utility value. The Tobit regression model was used to identify the factors affecting WTP per QALY values.ResultsThe mean WTP value and standard deviation (SD) was US$ 862 (3,224) for the respondents. The mean utility values using EQ-5D-3L and VAS methods for respondents were 0.779 and 0.800, respectively. Besides, the WTP for the additional QALY gained by the individual participants using the EQ-5D-3L and VAS methods were respectively US$ 1,202 and US$ 1,101, while the estimated value of the family members was US$ 1,355 (SD?=?3,993). The Tobit regression models indicated that monthly income, education level, sex, and birthplace were statistically significantly associated (p?<?0.05) with both the WTP for the extra QALY values using the EQ-5D-3L and the VAS methods. Educational level and monthly income also showed statistically significant relationships with the WTP for the additional QALY gained by the family members (p?<?0.05).ConclusionOur findings indicated that the participants' WTP value of the additional QALY gained from the hypothetical life-saving treatment was in the range of 0.20-0.24 of the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of Iran. This value is far lower than the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended CE threshold value of one. This wide gap reflects the challenges the health system is facing and requires further research for defining the most appropriate CE threshold at the local level.

Project description:BackgroundMost universities that re-open in the United States (US) for in-person instruction have implemented the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) guidelines. The value of additional interventions to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. We calculated the cost-effectiveness and cases averted of each intervention in combination with implementing the CDC guidelines.MethodsWe built a decision-analytic model to examine the cost-effectiveness of interventions to re-open universities. The interventions included implementing the CDC guidelines alone and in combination with 1) a symptom-checking mobile application, 2) university-provided standardized, high filtration masks, 3) thermal cameras for temperature screening, 4) one-time entry ('gateway') polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, and 5) weekly PCR testing. We also modeled a package of interventions ('package intervention') that combines the CDC guidelines with using the symptom-checking mobile application, standardized masks, gateway PCR testing, and weekly PCR testing. The direct and indirect costs were calculated in 2020 US dollars. We also provided an online interface that allows the user to change model parameters.ResultsAll interventions averted cases of COVID-19. When the prevalence of actively infectious cases reached 0.1%, providing standardized, high filtration masks saved money and improved health relative to implementing the CDC guidelines alone and in combination with using the symptom-checking mobile application, thermal cameras, and gateway testing. Compared with standardized masks, weekly PCR testing cost $9.27 million (95% Credible Interval [CrI]: cost-saving-$77.36 million)/QALY gained. Compared with weekly PCR testing, the 'package' intervention cost $137,877 (95% CrI: $3,108-$19.11 million)/QALY gained. At both a prevalence of 1% and 2%, the 'package' intervention saved money and improved health compared to all the other interventions.ConclusionsAll interventions were effective at averting infection from COVID-19. However, when the prevalence of actively infectious cases in the community was low, only standardized, high filtration masks clearly provided value.

Dataset Information

The aftermath of SARS-CoV-2 in NICU: saving or checking accounts? Projected cost-effectiveness analysis.

Publications

The aftermath of SARS-CoV-2 in NICU: saving or checking accounts? Projected cost-effectiveness analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure