Cost-effectiveness analysis of isolation strategies for asymptomatic and mild symptom COVID-19 patients.

IF 1.7 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation Pub Date : 2023-11-09 DOI:10.1186/s12962-023-00497-x

Unyaporn Suthutvoravut, Patratorn Kunakorntham, Anchisatha Semayai, Amarit Tansawet, Oraluck Pattanaprateep, Pongsathorn Piebpien, Pawin Numthavaj, Ammarin Thakkinstian, Pongsakorn Atiksawedparit

{"title":"Cost-effectiveness analysis of isolation strategies for asymptomatic and mild symptom COVID-19 patients.","authors":"Unyaporn Suthutvoravut, Patratorn Kunakorntham, Anchisatha Semayai, Amarit Tansawet, Oraluck Pattanaprateep, Pongsathorn Piebpien, Pawin Numthavaj, Ammarin Thakkinstian, Pongsakorn Atiksawedparit","doi":"10.1186/s12962-023-00497-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Management of COVID-19 patients with mild and moderate symptoms could be isolated at home isolation (HI), community isolation (CI) or hospitel. However, it was still unclear which strategy was more cost-effective. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate this.Methods: This study used data from patients who initially stayed at HI, CI, and hospitel under supervision of Ramathibodi Hospital between April and October 2021. Outcomes of interest were hospitalisation and mortality. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) was calculated based on hospital perspective using home isolation as the reference.Results: From 7,077 patients, 4,349 2,356, and 372 were admitted at hospitel, HI, and CI, respectively. Most patients were females (57.04%) and the mean age was 40.42 (SD = 16.15). Average durations of stay were 4.47, 3.35, and 3.91 days for HI, CI, and hospitel, respectively. The average cost per day for staying in these corresponding places were 24.22, 63.69, and 65.23 US$. For hospitalisation, the ICER for hospitel was at 41.93 US$ to avoid one hospitalisation in 1,000 patients when compared to HI, while CI had more cost, but less cases avoided. The ICER for hospitel and CI were at 46.21 and 866.17 US$ to avoid one death in 1,000 patients.Conclusions: HI may be cost-effective isolated strategy for preventing hospitalisation and death in developing countries with limited resources.","PeriodicalId":47054,"journal":{"name":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","volume":"21 1","pages":"85"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10636943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-023-00497-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Management of COVID-19 patients with mild and moderate symptoms could be isolated at home isolation (HI), community isolation (CI) or hospitel. However, it was still unclear which strategy was more cost-effective. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate this.

Methods: This study used data from patients who initially stayed at HI, CI, and hospitel under supervision of Ramathibodi Hospital between April and October 2021. Outcomes of interest were hospitalisation and mortality. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) was calculated based on hospital perspective using home isolation as the reference.

Results: From 7,077 patients, 4,349 2,356, and 372 were admitted at hospitel, HI, and CI, respectively. Most patients were females (57.04%) and the mean age was 40.42 (SD = 16.15). Average durations of stay were 4.47, 3.35, and 3.91 days for HI, CI, and hospitel, respectively. The average cost per day for staying in these corresponding places were 24.22, 63.69, and 65.23 US$. For hospitalisation, the ICER for hospitel was at 41.93 US$ to avoid one hospitalisation in 1,000 patients when compared to HI, while CI had more cost, but less cases avoided. The ICER for hospitel and CI were at 46.21 and 866.17 US$ to avoid one death in 1,000 patients.

Conclusions: HI may be cost-effective isolated strategy for preventing hospitalisation and death in developing countries with limited resources.

查看原文本刊更多论文

无症状和轻度症状新冠肺炎患者隔离策略的成本效益分析。

背景：新冠肺炎轻中度症状患者的管理可以在家庭隔离（HI）、社区隔离（CI）或医院隔离。然而，目前尚不清楚哪种战略更具成本效益。因此，本研究旨在对此进行评估。方法：本研究使用了2021年4月至10月期间在Ramathibodi医院监督下最初入住HI、CI和医院的患者的数据。感兴趣的结果是住院和死亡率。增量成本效益比（ICER）是基于医院的观点，以居家隔离为参考计算的。结果：7077名患者中，43492256名和372名分别入住医院、HI和CI。大多数患者为女性（57.04%），平均年龄为40.42岁（SD = 16.15）。HI、CI和hospitel的平均住院时间分别为4.47、3.35和3.91天。在这些相应地方住宿的平均每天费用分别为24.22美元、63.69美元和65.23美元。就住院而言，与HI相比，医院的ICER为41.93美元，以避免每1000名患者中就有一人住院，而CI的成本更高，但避免的病例更少。Hospital和CI的ICER分别为46.21和866.17美元，以避免每1000名患者中就有一人死亡。结论：在资源有限的发展中国家，HI可能是一种成本效益高的预防住院和死亡的孤立策略。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

4.30%

发文量

审稿时长

34 weeks

期刊介绍： Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of cost-effectiveness analysis, including conceptual or methodological work, economic evaluations, and policy analysis related to resource allocation at a national or international level. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation is aimed at health economists, health services researchers, and policy-makers with an interest in enhancing the flow and transfer of knowledge relating to efficiency in the health sector. Manuscripts are encouraged from researchers based in low- and middle-income countries, with a view to increasing the international economic evidence base for health.