Dataset Information

Indirect COVID-19 health effects and potential mitigating interventions: Cost-effectiveness framework.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic led to important indirect health and social harms in addition to deaths and morbidity due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. These indirect impacts, such as increased depression and substance abuse, can have persistent effects over the life course. Estimated health and cost outcomes of such conditions and mitigation strategies may guide public health responses.

Methods

We developed a cost-effectiveness framework to evaluate societal costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost due to six health-related indirect effects of COVID-19 in California. Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated for the adult population. We identified one evidence-based mitigation strategy for each condition and estimated QALYs gained, intervention costs, and savings from averted health-related harms. Model data were derived from literature review, public data, and expert opinion.

Results

Pandemic-associated increases in prevalence across these six conditions were estimated to lead to over 192,000 QALYs lost and to approach $7 billion in societal costs per million population over the life course of adults. The greatest costs and QALYs lost per million adults were due to adult depression. All mitigation strategies assessed saved both QALYs and costs, with five strategies achieving savings within one year. The greatest net savings over 10 years would be achieved by addressing depression ($242 million) and excessive alcohol use ($107 million).

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic is leading to significant human suffering and societal costs due to its indirect effects. Policymakers have an opportunity to reduce societal costs and health harms by implementing mitigation strategies.

SUBMITTER: Maya S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9292069 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. Governments have implemented combinations of "lockdown" measures of various stringencies, including school and workplace closures, cancellations of public events, and restrictions on internal and external movements. These policy interventions are an attempt to shield high-risk individuals and to prevent overwhelming countries' healthcare systems, or, colloquially, "flatten the curve." However, these policy interventions may come with physical and psychological health harms, group and social harms, and opportunity costs. These policies may particularly affect vulnerable populations and not only exacerbate pre-existing inequities but also generate new ones.MethodsWe developed a conceptual framework to identify and categorize adverse effects of COVID-19 lockdown measures. We based our framework on Lorenc and Oliver's framework for the adverse effects of public health interventions and the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework. To test its application, we purposively sampled COVID-19 policy examples from around the world and evaluated them for the potential physical, psychological, and social harms, as well as opportunity costs, in each of the PROGRESS-Plus equity domains: Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, and disability).ResultsWe found examples of inequitably distributed adverse effects for each COVID-19 lockdown policy example, stratified by a low- or middle-income country and high-income country, in every PROGRESS-Plus equity domain. We identified the known policy interventions intended to mitigate some of these adverse effects. The same harms (anxiety, depression, food insecurity, loneliness, stigma, violence) appear to be repeated across many groups and are exacerbated by several COVID-19 policy interventions.ConclusionOur conceptual framework highlights the fact that COVID-19 policy interventions can generate or exacerbate interactive and multiplicative equity harms. Applying this framework can help in three ways: (1) identifying the areas where a policy intervention may generate inequitable adverse effects; (2) mitigating the policy and practice interventions by facilitating the systematic examination of relevant evidence; and (3) planning for lifting COVID-19 lockdowns and policy interventions around the world.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to many countries implementing lockdown procedures, resulting in the suspension of laboratory research. With lockdown measures now easing in some areas, many laboratories are preparing to reopen. This is particularly challenging for clinical research laboratories due to the dual risk of patient samples carrying the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, and the risk to patients being exposed to research staff during clinical sampling. To date, no confirmed transmission of the virus has been confirmed within a laboratory setting; however, operating processes and procedures should be adapted to ensure safe working of samples of positive, negative, or unknown COVID-19 status.ObjectiveIn this paper, we propose a framework for reopening a clinical research laboratory and resuming operations with the aim to maximize research capacity while minimizing the risk to research participants and staff.MethodsThis framework was developed by consensus among experienced laboratory staff who have prepared to reopen a clinical research laboratory.ResultsMultiple aspects need to be considered to reopen a clinical laboratory. We describe our process to stratify projects by risk, including assessment of donor risk and COVID-19 clinical status, the COVID-19 status of the specific sample type, and how to safely process each sample type. We describe methods to prepare the laboratory for safe working including maintaining social distancing through signage, one-way systems and access arrangements for staff and patients, limiting staff numbers on site and encouraging home working for all nonlaboratory tasks including data analysis and writing. Shared equipment usage was made safe by adapting booking systems to allow for the deployment of cleaning protocols. All risk assessments and standard operating procedures were rewritten and approved by local committees, and staff training was initiated to ensure compliance.ConclusionsLaboratories can adopt and adapt this framework to expedite reopening a clinical laboratory during the current COVID-19 pandemic while mitigating the risk to research participants and staff.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis impacting population health and the economy. We describe a cost-effectiveness framework for evaluating acute treatments for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, considering a broad spectrum of potential treatment profiles and perspectives within the US healthcare system to ensure incorporation of the most relevant clinical parameters, given evidence currently available.MethodsA lifetime model, with a short-term acute care decision tree followed by a post-discharge three-state Markov cohort model, was developed to estimate the impact of a potential treatment relative to best supportive care (BSC) for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The model included information on costs and resources across inpatient levels of care, use of mechanical ventilation, post-discharge morbidity from ventilation, and lifetime healthcare and societal costs. Published literature informed clinical and treatment inputs, healthcare resource use, unit costs, and utilities. The potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed from US health payer, societal, and fee-for-service (FFS) payment model perspectives.ResultsViewing results in aggregate, treatments that conferred at least a mortality benefit were likely to be cost-effective, as all deterministic and sensitivity analyses results fell far below willingness-to-pay thresholds using both a US health payer and FFS payment perspective, with and without societal costs included. In the base case, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) ranged from $22,933 from a health payer perspective using bundled payments to $8028 from a societal perspective using a FFS payment model. Even with conservative assumptions on societal impact, inclusion of societal costs consistently produced ICERs 40-60% lower than ICERs for the payer perspective.ConclusionEffective COVID-19 treatments for hospitalized patients may not only reduce disease burden but also represent good value for the health system and society. Though data limitations remain, this cost-effectiveness framework expands beyond current models to include societal costs and post-discharge ventilation morbidity effects of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Project description:BackgroundIn dealing with community spread of COVID-19, two active interventions have been attempted or advocated-containment, and mitigation. Given the extensive impact of COVID-19 globally, there is international interest to learn from best practices that have been shown to work in controlling community spread to inform future outbreaks. This study explores the trajectory of COVID-19 infection in Singapore had the government intervention not focused on containment, but rather on mitigation. In addition, we estimate the actual COVID-19 infection cases in Singapore, given that confirmed cases are publicly available.Methods and findingsWe developed a COVID-19 infection model, which is a modified SIR model that differentiate between detected (diagnosed) and undetected (undiagnosed) individuals and segments total population into seven health states: susceptible (S), infected asymptomatic undiagnosed (A), infected asymptomatic diagnosed (I), infected symptomatic undiagnosed (U), infected symptomatic diagnosed (E), recovered (R), and dead (D). To account for the infection stages of the asymptomatic and symptomatic infected individuals, the asymptomatic infected individuals were further disaggregated into three infection stages: (a) latent (b) infectious and (c) non-infectious; while the symptomatic infected were disaggregated into two stages: (a) infectious and (b) non-infectious. The simulation result shows that by the end of the current epidemic cycle without considering the possibility of a second wave, under the containment intervention implemented in Singapore, the confirmed number of Singaporeans infected with COVID-19 (diagnosed asymptomatic and symptomatic cases) is projected to be 52,053 (with 95% confidence range of 49,370-54,735) representing 0.87% (0.83%-0.92%) of the total population; while the actual number of Singaporeans infected with COVID-19 (diagnosed and undiagnosed asymptomatic and symptomatic infected cases) is projected to be 86,041 (81,097-90,986), which is 1.65 times the confirmed cases and represents 1.45% (1.36%-1.53%) of the total population. A peak in infected cases is projected to have occurred on around day 125 (27/05/2020) for the confirmed infected cases and around day 115 (17/05/2020) for the actual infected cases. The number of deaths is estimated to be 37 (34-39) among those infected with COVID-19 by the end of the epidemic cycle; consequently, the perceived case fatality rate is projected to be 0.07%, while the actual case fatality rate is estimated to be 0.043%. Importantly, our simulation model results suggest that there about 65% more COVID-19 infection cases in Singapore that have not been captured in the official reported numbers which could be uncovered via a serological study. Compared to the containment intervention, a mitigation intervention would have resulted in early peak infection, and increase both the cumulative confirmed and actual infection cases and deaths.ConclusionEarly public health measures in the context of targeted, aggressive containment including swift and effective contact tracing and quarantine, was likely responsible for suppressing the number of COVID-19 infections in Singapore.

Project description:BackgroundIndigenous populations around the world have consistently been shown to bear a greater burden of disease, death and disability than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Despite this, little is known about what constitutes cost-effective interventions in these groups. The objective of this paper was to assess the global cost-effectiveness literature in Indigenous health to identify characteristics of successful and unsuccessful interventions and highlight areas for further research.Methods and findingsA systematic review of the published literature was carried out. MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, ECONLIT, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched with terms to identify cost-effectiveness evaluations of interventions in Indigenous populations around the world. The WHO definition was followed in identifying Indigenous populations. 19 studies reporting on 27 interventions were included in the review. The majority of studies came from high-income nations with only two studies of interventions in low and middle-income nations. 22 of the 27 interventions included in the analysis were found to be cost-effective or cost-saving by the respective studies. There were only two studies that focused on Indigenous communities in urban areas, neither of which was found to be cost-effective. There was little attention paid to Indigenous conceptions of health in included studies. Of the 27 included studies, 23 were interventions that specifically targeted Indigenous populations. Outreach programs were shown to be consistently cost-effective.ConclusionThe comprehensive review found only a small number of studies examining the cost-effectiveness of interventions into Indigenous communities around the world. Given the persistent disparities in health outcomes faced by these populations and commitments from governments around the world to improving these outcomes, it is an area where the health economics and public health fields can play an important role in improving the health of millions of people.