Optimal strategies to screen health care workers for COVID-19 in the US: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health care facilities poses a challenge against pandemic control. Health care workers (HCWs) have frequent and high-risk interactions with COVID-19 patients. We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine optimal testing strategies for screening HCWs to inform strategic decision-making in health care settings. Methods We modeled the number of new infections, quality-adjusted life years lost, and net costs related to six testing strategies including no test. We applied our model to four strata of HCWs, defined by the presence and timing of symptoms. We conducted sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainty in inputs. Results When screening recently symptomatic HCWs, conducting only a PCR test is preferable; it saves costs and improves health outcomes in the first week post-symptom onset, and costs $83,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained in the second week post-symptom onset. When screening HCWs in the late clinical disease stage, none of the testing approaches is cost-effective and thus no testing is preferable, yielding $11 and 0.003 new infections per 10 HCWs. For screening asymptomatic HCWs, antigen testing is preferable to PCR testing due to its lower cost. Conclusions Both PCR and antigen testing are beneficial strategies to identify infected HCWs and reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in health care settings. IgG tests’ value depends on test timing and immunity characteristics, however it is not cost-effective in a low prevalence setting. As the context of the pandemic evolves, our study provides insight to health-care decision makers to keep the health care workforce safe and transmissions low.

Cost-Effectiveness of Upper Extremity Dry Needling in Chronic Stroke

Introduction: Dry needling is a non-pharmacological approach that has proven to be effective in different neurological conditions. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a single dry needling session in patients with chronic stroke. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on a randomized controlled clinical trial. The results obtained from the values of the EuroQol-5D questionnaire and the Modified Modified Ashworth Scale were processed in order to obtain the percentage of treatment responders and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each alternative. The cost analysis was that of the hospital, clinic, or health center, including the equipment and physiotherapist. The cost per respondent and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of each alternative were assessed. Results: Twenty-three patients with stroke were selected. The cost of DN treatment was EUR 14.96, and the data analysis showed a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of both EUR/QALY and EUR/responder for IG, although the sensitivity analysis using limit values did not confirm the dominance (higher effectiveness with less cost) of the dry needling over the sham dry needling. Conclusions: Dry needling is an affordable alternative with good results in the cost-effectiveness analysis—both immediately, and after two weeks of treatment—compared to sham dry needling in persons with chronic stroke.

A Pharmacoeconomics Study for Anticoagulants used for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Al-Najaf Al-Ashraf city –Iraq(Conference Paper )#

Background: The novel coronavirus 2 (SARS?CoV?2) pandemic is a pulmonary disease, which leads to cardiac, hematologic, and renal complications. Anticoagulants are used for COVID-19 infected patients because the infection increases the risk of thrombosis. The world health organization (WHO), recommend prophylaxis dose of anticoagulants: (Enoxaparin or unfractionated Heparin for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 disease. This has created an urgent need to identify effective medications for COVID-19 prevention and treatment. The value of COVID-19 treatments is affected by cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to inform relative value and how to best maximize social welfare through evidence-based pricing decisions. Objective: compare the clinical outcome and the costs of two anticoagulants (heparin and (enoxaparin)) used to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. Patients and method: The study was a retrospective review of medical records of adult, non-pregnant, COVID-19 infected hospitalized patients who had baseline and last outcome measurements at Alamal Epidemiology Center, Al-Najaf city from (Augast 2020 to June 2021). The outcome measures included D-dimer, length of stay (LOS), and mortality rate. Only the cost of the medical treatment was considered in the analysis. The pharmacoeconomics analysis was done in three different cost-effectiveness analysis methods. Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS), was used to conduct statistical analysis. Kaplan Meier test was used to compare the mortality rate. T-TEST was used to compare the outcomes of the two groups. Results and discussion: two groups were compared, the first group consists of 72 patients who received heparin, and the second group consists of 72 patients who received enoxaparin. COVID-19 infected patients had a higher abnormal average D-dimer (2534.675 ng/dl). No significant differences between both genders with regards to the basal average D-dimer (males= 2649.95 ng/dl, females= 2374.1mg/dl, P-value>0.05). There was a significant difference between patient's ages 60 years and patients <60. (3177.33 ng/dl, 1763.06 ng/dl, P-value <0.05). It seems that, higher D-dimer levels were associated with a higher mortality rate (died=3166.263 ng/dl, survived= 1729.94 ng/dl, P-value <0.05). Heparin was more effective in decreasing D-dimer levels than enoxaparin which inversely increased the D-dimer levels (-24.4 ng/dl/day, +154.701 ng/dl/day, P-value <0.05). Additionally, heparin was more effective in increasing the survival rate compared to enoxaparin (55% vs, 35%, P-value<0.05). Heparin was associated with a longer duration of stay in hospital than enoxaparin but with no significant difference (13.7 days, 12.3 days, P-value >0.05). Concerning the cost, treatment with heparin cost less than enoxaparin (2.08 U.S $, 9.44 U.S $)/per patient/per day. Conclusion: Originator heparin was a more cost-effective anticoagulant therapy compared to originator enoxaparin, it was associated with a lower cost and better effect, treatment with Heparin resulted in positive INB= 11.3, where a positive result means that heparin is more cost-effective than Enoxaparin. All three methods of pharmacoeconomic analysis decide that heparin was more cost-effective than enoxaparin in treating COVID-19 infected patients.