Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (Nov 2023)

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

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

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-023-00497-x
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

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.

Keywords