A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Interventions: Considerations of Non-Health Impacts and Distributional Issues

ObjectivesThis study aims to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of COVID-19 interventions and to examine whether and how these studies incorporate non-health impacts and distributional concerns.MethodsWe searched the National Institutes of Health’s COVID-19 Portfolio as of May 20, 2021, and supplemented our search with additional sources. We included original articles, including preprints, evaluating both the health and economic effects of a COVID-19–related intervention. Using a pre-specified data collection form, 2 reviewers independently screened, reviewed, and extracted information about the study characteristics, intervention types, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We used an Impact Inventory to catalog the types of non-health impacts considered.ResultsWe included 70 articles, almost half of which were preprints. Most articles (56%) included at least one non-health impact, but fewer (21%) incorporated non-economic consequences. Few articles (17%) examined subgroups of interest. After excluding negative ICERs, the median ICER for the entire sample (n = 243 ratios) was $67,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (interquartile range [IQR] $9000-$893,000/QALY). Interventions including a pharmaceutical component yielded a median ICER of $93,000/QALY (IQR $4000-$7,809,000/QALY), whereas interventions including a non-pharmaceutical component were slightly more cost-effective overall with a median ICER of $81,000/QALY (IQR $12,000-$1,034,000/QALY). Interventions reported to be highly cost-effective were treatment, public information campaigns, quarantining identified contacts/cases, canceling public events, and social distancing.ConclusionsOur review highlights the lack of consideration of non-health and distributional impacts among COVID-19–related economic evaluations. Accounting for non-health impacts and distributional effects is essential for comprehensive assessment of interventions’ value and imperative for generating cost-effectiveness evidence for both current and future pandemics.     

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

ObjectivesAs healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a “living” systematic review approach.MethodsKey databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer.ResultsOverall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price.ConclusionsPresently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this “living” review.     

A Systematic Review of Disability Management Interventions with Economic Evaluations

Introduction We present the results of a systematic literature review of disability management interventions to answer the question: “what is the credible evidence that incremental investment in disability management interventions is worth undertaking?” Methods We identified studies through searches in journal databases and requests to content experts. After assessing the quality of studies that met content requirements, we employed a best-evidence synthesis approach. Studies were stratified across several dimensions for evidence synthesis, with industry as the core stratification criterion. Results We identified 17 disability management interventions with economic analyses, of which eight were of high or medium quality. We found strong evidence supporting the economic merits of multi-sector disability management interventions, but could not make a positive statement about the remaining five industry clusters with studies. For stratification by intervention components, we found moderate evidence for interventions that included an education component, moderate evidence for those with physiotherapy, limited evidence for those with a behavioural component, and moderate evidence for those with a work/vocational rehabilitation component. For stratification by intervention features, we found moderate evidence for interventions that included a work accommodation offer, contact between health care provider and workplace, early contact with worker by workplace, ergonomic work site visits, and interventions with a return-to-work coordinator. Conclusions We found credible evidence supporting the financial benefits of disability management interventions for one industry cluster and several intervention components and features.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Food Allergy Interventions in Children: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

ObjectivesTo identify published economic evaluations of interventions aimed at preventing, diagnosing, or treating food allergies in children.MethodsWe examined economic evaluations published from 2000 to 2019. Data analyzed included: food allergy type, study population/setting, intervention/comparator, and economic evaluation details. Quality assessment used reporting and economic modeling checklists. Two reviewers simultaneously undertook article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment.Results17 studies were included: 8 peanut allergy (PA) studies, 8 cow’s milk allergy (CMA) studies, and 1 egg allergy (EA) study. All PA studies reported incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained for diagnostic strategies, management pathways for peanut exposure, and immunotherapies. Immunotherapies rendered inconsistent cost-effectiveness results. CMA studies reported costs per symptom-free day or probability of developing CMA tolerance. Cost-effectiveness of extensively hydrolyzed casein formula for CMA treatment was consistently demonstrated. Early introduction of cooked egg in first year of life dominated all EA prevention strategies. Quality assessment showed average noncompliance for 3.5 items/study (range 0-11) for modeling methods and 3.4 items/study (range 0-8) for reporting quality. Key quality concerns included limited justification for model choice, evidence base for model parameters, source of utility values, and representation of uncertainty.ConclusionRecent cost-effectiveness literature of interventions in PA, CMA, and EA is limited and diverse. Interventions for diagnosis and treatment of CMA and prevention of EA were generally cost-effective; however, results for PA were variable and dependent on effectiveness and utility values used. There is a need to expand economic evaluation of interventions for childhood food allergy and to improve methods and reporting.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Antiviral Treatments for Pandemics and Outbreaks of Respiratory Illnesses,Including COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Published Economic Evaluations

ObjectiveTo review published economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We searched Medline (EBSCOhost), EMBASE (Ovid), EconLit (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (Ovid), and Health Technology Assessment (Ovid). The search was last rerun on July 5, 2020. Citation tracking and reference checking were used. Only full economic evaluations published as peer-reviewed articles in the last 10 years were included. Studies were quality assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence economic evaluation checklist.ResultsOverall, 782 records were identified, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were mostly conducted in high-income countries. All were model-based. Seven (50%) were cost-utility analyses, 4 (28.6%) were cost-effectiveness analyses, 2 (14.3%) were cost-consequences analyses, and 1 (7.1%) was a cost-benefit analysis. Strategies including antiviral treatment were found to be either cost-saving or cost-effective, at the study-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. Empirical treatment was more cost-effective than test-guided treatment for young adults but less so for older adults.ConclusionsAntiviral treatment for managing pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses that have very high case fatality rate, similar to COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be cost-effective either as a standalone intervention or part of a multifaceted strategy. Investing in the development of such curative treatments and promptly evaluating their cost-effectiveness, relative to other strategies in use at the time of their introduction should be the focus going forward to inform resource allocation decisions particularly in low- and middle-income countries.     

Value of Nonpharmacological Interventions for People With an Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

ObjectivesAcquired brain injury (ABI) has long-lasting effects, and patients and their families require continued care and support, often for the rest of their lives. For many individuals living with an ABI disorder, nonpharmacological rehabilitation treatment care has become increasingly important care component and relevant for informed healthcare decision making. Our study aimed to appraise economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for individuals living with an ABI.MethodsThis systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020187469), and a protocol article was subject to peer review. Searches were conducted across several databases for articles published from inception to 2021. Study quality was assessed according the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes criteria.ResultsOf the 3772 articles reviewed 41 publications met the inclusion criteria. There was a considerable heterogeneity in methodological approaches, target populations, study time frames, and perspectives and comparators used. Keeping these issues in mind, we find that 4 multidisciplinary interventions studies concluded that fast-track specialized services were cheaper and more cost-effective than usual care, with cost savings ranging from £253 to £6063. In 3 neuropsychological studies, findings suggested that meditated therapy was more effective and saved money than usual care. In 4 early supported discharge studies, interventions were dominant over usual care, with cost savings ranging from £142 to £1760.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness evidence of different nonpharmacological rehabilitation treatments is scant. More robust evidence is needed to determine the value of these and other interventions across the ABI care pathway.     

A Review of Methodological Considerations for Economic Evaluations of Gene Therapies and Their Application in Literature

ObjectivesTo identify methodological considerations discussed in literature addressing economic evaluations (EEs) of gene therapies (GTs). Additionally, we assessed if these considerations are applied in published GT EEs to increase understanding and explore impact.MethodsFirst a peer-reviewed literature review was performed to identify research addressing methodological considerations of GT EEs until August 2019. Identified considerations were grouped in themes using thematic content analysis. A second literature search was conducted in which we identified published evaluations. The EE quality of reporting was assessed using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.ResultsThe first literature search yielded 13 articles discussing methodological considerations. The second search provided 12 EEs. Considerations identified were payment models, definition of perspectives, addressing uncertainty, data extrapolation, discount rates, novel value elements, and use of indirect and surrogate endpoints. All EEs scored satisfactory to good according to Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Regarding methodological application, we found 1 methodological element (payment models) was applied in 2 base cases. Scenarios explored alternative perspectives, survival assumptions, and extrapolation methods in 10 EEs.ConclusionsAlthough EE quality of reporting was considered good, their informativeness for health technology assessment and decision makers seemed limited owing to many uncertainties. We suggest accepted EE methods can broadly be applied to GTs, but few elements may need adjustment. Further research and multi-stakeholder consensus is needed to determine appropriateness and application of individual methodological considerations. For now, we recommend including scenario analyses to explore impact of methodological choices and (clinical) uncertainties. This study contributes to better understanding of perceived appropriate evaluation of GTs and informs best modeling practices.     

Acknowledging Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluations in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesSchizophrenia is a severe mental illness with heterogeneous etiology, range of symptoms, and course of illness. Cost-effectiveness analysis often applies averages from populations, which disregards patient heterogeneity even though there are a range of methods available to acknowledge patient heterogeneity. This review evaluates existing economic evaluations of interventions in schizophrenia to understand how patient heterogeneity is currently reflected in economic evaluation.MethodsElectronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO via Ovid and the Health Technology Assessment database were run to identify full economic evaluations of interventions aiming to reduce the symptoms associated with schizophrenia. Two levels of screening were used, and explicit inclusion criteria were applied. Prespecified data extraction and critical appraisal were performed.ResultsSeventy-six relevant studies were identified. More than half (41 of 76) of the articles acknowledged patient heterogeneity in some way through discussion or methods. There was a range of patient characteristics considered, including demographics and socioeconomic factors (eg, age, educational level, ethnicity), clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity, comorbidities), and preferences (eg, preferences related to outcomes or symptoms). Subgroup analyses were rarely reported (8 of 76).ConclusionsPatient heterogeneity was frequently mentioned in studies but was rarely thoroughly investigated in the identified economic evaluations. When investigated, included patient characteristics and methods were found to be heterogeneous. Understanding and acknowledging patient heterogeneity may alter the conclusions of cost-effectiveness evaluations; subsequently, we would encourage further research in this area.     

A meta-analysis of influenza vaccination following correspondence: Considerations for COVID-19

BackgroundHigh vaccination rates are needed to protect against influenza and to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Health authorities need to know if supplementing mass communications with direct correspondence to the community would increase uptake.ObjectivesThe primary objective is to determine if sending a single written message directly to individuals increases influenza vaccine uptake, and a secondary objective is to identify any identified content shown to increase influenza vaccine uptake.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched for RCTs testing a single correspondence for members of the community in OECD countries to obtain influenza vaccination. A meta-analysis with inverse-variance, random-effects modelling was used to estimate a mean, weighted risk ratio effect size measure of vaccine uptake. Studies were quality assessed and analysis was undertaken to account for potential publication bias.ResultsTwenty-eight randomized controlled trials were included, covering 45 interventions. Of the 45 interventions, 37 (82.2%) report an increase in influenza vaccination rates. A formal meta-analysis shows that sending a single written message increased influenza vaccine uptake by 16%, relative to the no contact comparator group (RR = 1.16, 95% CI [1.13–1.20], Z = 9.25, p < .001). Analysis shows that the intervention is effective across correspondence type, age group, time, and location, and after allowing for risk of publication bias.LimitationsThe generalizability of results across the OECD may be questioned.Conclusions and implicationsThe implication for public health authorities organizing vaccination programs for influenza, and arguably also for COVID-19, is that sending written vaccination correspondence to members of the community is likely to increase uptake.This study is pre-registered on osf.io; details can be found at https://osf.io/98mr7.     

Analytic Considerations in Economic Evaluations of Multinational Cardiovascular Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES: The growing number of economic evaluations that use data collected in multinational clinical trials raises numerous questions regarding their execution and interpretation. Although recommendations for conducting economic evaluations have been widely disseminated, relatively little guidance has been given for conducting economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, particularly multinational trials. METHODS: Building on a literature review that was conducted in preparation for an expert workshop, we evaluated a subset of methodological issues related to conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials. RESULTS: We found wide variation in the types of costs included as part of the analyses and in the methods used to assign costs to hospitalization events. Furthermore, we found that the extrapolation of costs and survival outcomes beyond the trial period is an inconsistent practice and is often not dependent on whether a survival benefit was observed in the trial or on the epidemiology or practice patterns in the country to which the findings are directed. CONCLUSIONS: Although the limited sample size precluded a quantitative analysis of trial characteristics and their associations with the methodologies employed, our findings highlight the need for more guidance to analysts regarding the execution of economic evaluations using data from multinational clinical trials. As the research community grapples with the complexities of methodological and logistical issues involved in multinational economic evaluations, the development of a standardized format to report the basic methodological characteristics of such studies would help to improve transparency and comparability for other analysts and decision-makers.     

Investigating the Generalizability of Economic Evaluations Conducted in Italy: A Critical Review

ObjectivesTo assess the methodological quality of Italian health economic evaluations and their generalizability or transferability to different settings.MethodsA literature search was performed on the PubMed search engine to identify trial-based, nonexperimental prospective studies or model-based full economic evaluations carried out in Italy from 1995 to 2013. The studies were randomly assigned to four reviewers who applied a detailed checklist to assess the generalizability and quality of reporting. The review process followed a three-step blinded procedure. The reviewers who carried out the data extraction were blind as to the name of the author(s) of each study. Second, after the first review, articles were reassigned through a second blind randomization to a second reviewer. Finally, any disagreement between the first two reviewers was solved by a senior researcher.ResultsOne hundred fifty-one economic evaluations eventually met the inclusion criteria. Over time, we observed an increasing transparency in methods and a greater generalizability of results, along with a wider and more representative sample in trials and a larger adoption of transition-Markov models. However, often context-specific economic evaluations are carried out and not enough effort is made to ensure the transferability of their results to other contexts. In recent studies, cost-effectiveness analyses and the use of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were preferred.ConclusionsDespite a quite positive temporal trend, generalizability of results still appears as an unsolved question, even if some indication of improvement within Italian studies has been observed.     

Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Policy Measures: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on our society, with drastic policy restrictions being implemented to contain the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This study aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of various coronavirus disease 2019 policy measures.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Health economic evaluations considering both costs and outcomes were included. Their quality was comprehensively assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. Next, the quality of the epidemiological models was evaluated.ResultsA total of 3688 articles were identified (March 2021), of which 23 were included. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to methodological quality, contextual factors, strategies’ content, adopted perspective, applied models, and outcomes used. Overall, testing/screening, social distancing, personal protective equipment, quarantine/isolation, and hygienic measures were found to be cost-effective. Furthermore, the most optimal choice and combination of strategies depended on the reproduction number and context. With a rising reproduction number, extending the testing strategy and early implementation of combined multiple restriction measures are most efficient.ConclusionsThe quality assessment highlighted numerous flaws and limitations in the study approaches; hence, their results should be interpreted with caution because the specific context (country, target group, etc) is a key driver for cost-effectiveness. Finally, including a societal perspective in future evaluations is key because this pandemic has an indirect impact on the onset and treatment of other conditions and on our global economy.     

Effectiveness of Health and Safety in Small Enterprises: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Evaluations of Interventions

Introduction This systematic review was conducted to identify effective occupational health and safety interventions for small businesses. Methods The review focused on peer-reviewed intervention studies conducted in small businesses with 100 or fewer employees, that were published in English and several other languages, and that were not limited by publication date. Multidisciplinary members of the review team identified relevant articles and assessed their quality. Studies assessed as medium or high quality had data extracted, which was then synthesized. Results Five studies were deemed of medium or high quality, and proceeded to data extraction and evidence synthesis. The types of interventions identified: a combination of training and safety audits; and a combination of engineering, training, safety audits, and a motivational component, showed a limited amount of evidence in improving safety outcomes. Overall, this evidence synthesis found a moderate level of evidence for intervention effectiveness, and found no evidence that any intervention had adverse effects. Conclusions Even though there were few studies that adequately evaluated small business intervention, several studies demonstrate that well-designed evaluations are possible with small businesses. While stronger levels of evidence are required to make recommendations, these interventions noted above were associated with positive changes in safety-related attitudes and beliefs and workplace parties should be aware of them.     

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Biomarkers

Background

Diagnostic biomarkers have multiple applications along the care process and have a large potential in optimizing treatment decisions. However, many diagnostic biomarkers struggle to gain market access and obtain appropriate coverage because of a lack of evidence on their health economic impact.

Objectives

The aim was to review the (methodological) characteristics of recent economic evaluations on diagnostic biomarkers and examine whether these studies dealt with specific issues such as different payer perspectives, preference heterogeneity, and multiple applications in subpopulations.

Methods

The PubMed database and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched. Full economic evaluations published after 2009 assessing diagnostic biomarkers for the main non-communicable diseases in middle-income or high-income countries were considered eligible. Empirical and methodological study characteristics were summarized, as was the handling of specific issues related to the economic evaluation of personalized medicine.

Results

Thirty-three economic evaluations were included, of which 25 were model-based analyses. The number of strategies compared ranged from two to 17 per study, and was especially large in studies assessing genetic testing in patients and their relatives. Cost-effectiveness results were most sensitive to test accuracy and costs of the biomarker (N = 7), the relative risk of an event (N = 4), and the proportion of people accepting genetic testing (N = 2). One study incorporated patient preferences, and none of the studies considered different payer perspectives, cost sharing arrangements or variable opportunity costs due to population density variability.

Conclusions

Published health economic evaluations of biomarkers used for diagnosing, staging diseases, and guiding treatment selection are characterized by a large number of comparators to model the potential clinical applications and to determine their value. Assessing outcomes beyond health as well as specific issues, such as different payer perspectives and patient preferences, is crucial to fully capture the potential health economic impact of diagnostic biomarkers and to inform value-based reimbursement.

     

Economic Evaluations of Pathology Tests, 2010-2015: A Scoping Review

Background

Concerns about pathology testing such as the value provided by new tests and the potential for inappropriate utilization have led to a greater need to assess costs and benefits. Economic evaluations are a formal method of analyzing costs and benefits, yet for pathology tests, questions remain about the scope and quality of the economic evidence.

Economic Evaluations of Remote Patient Monitoring for Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesThis study aimed to systematically review and summarize economic evaluations of noninvasive remote patient monitoring (RPM) for chronic diseases compared with usual care.MethodsA systematic literature search identified economic evaluations of RPM for chronic diseases, compared with usual care. Searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit using keyword synonyms for RPM and economics identified articles published from up until September 2021. Title, abstract, and full-text reviews were conducted. Data extraction of study characteristics and health economic findings was performed. Article reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.ResultsThis review demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of RPM was dependent on clinical context, capital investment, organizational processes, and willingness to pay in each specific setting. RPM was found to be highly cost-effective for hypertension and may be cost-effective for heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There were few studies that investigated RPM for diabetes or other chronic diseases. Studies were of high reporting quality, with an average Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards score of 81%. Of the final 34 included studies, most were conducted from the healthcare system perspective. Eighteen studies used cost-utility analysis, 4 used cost-effectiveness analysis, 2 combined cost-utility analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis, 1 used cost-consequence analysis, 1 used cost-benefit analysis, and 8 used cost-minimization analysis.ConclusionsRPM was highly cost-effective for hypertension and may achieve greater long-term cost savings from the prevention of high-cost health events. For chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure, cost-effectiveness findings differed according to disease severity and there was limited economic evidence for diabetes interventions.     

Challenges for Economic Evaluations of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesAdvanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are drugs for human use for the treatment of chronic, degenerative, or life-threatening diseases that are based on genes, tissues, or cells. This article aimed to identify and critically review published economic analyses of ATMPs.MethodsA systematic review of economic analyses of ATMPs was undertaken. Study characteristics, design, sources of data, resources and unit costs, modeling and extrapolation methods, study results, and sensitivity analyses were assessed.ResultsA total of 46 economic analyses of ATMP (from 45 articles) were included; 4 were cell therapy medicinal products, 33 gene therapy medicinal products, and 9 tissue-engineered products. 30 therapies had commercial marketing approval; 39 studies were cost-utility analysis, 5 were cost-effectiveness analysis, and 2 were cost only studies. Four studies predicted that the ATMP offered a step change in the management of the condition and 10 studies estimated that the ATMP would offer a lower mean cost.ConclusionsComparison with historical controls, pooling of data, and use of techniques such as mixture cure fraction models should be used cautiously. Sensitivity analyses should be used across a plausible range of prices. Clinical studies need to be designed to align with health technology assessment requirements, including generic quality of life, and payers should aim for clarity of criteria. Regulators and national payers should aim for compatibility of registers to allow interchange of data. Given the increasing reliance on industry-funded economic analyses, careful critical review is recommended.     

Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers in Germany: Description,Economic Evaluation,and Systematic Review

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, Central COVID-19 Coordination Centers (CCCCs) have been established at several hospitals across Germany with the intention to assist local health care professionals in efficiently referring patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to regional hospitals and therefore to prevent the collapse of local health system structures. In addition, these centers coordinate interhospital transfers of patients with COVID-19 and provide or arrange specialized telemedical consultations.ObjectiveThis study describes the establishment and management of a CCCC at a German university hospital.MethodsWe performed economic analyses (cost, cost-effectiveness, use, and utility) according to the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) criteria. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review to identify publications on similar institutions worldwide. The 2 months with the highest local incidence of COVID-19 cases (December 2020 and January 2021) were considered.ResultsDuring this time, 17.3 requests per day were made to the CCCC regarding admission or transfer of patients with COVID-19. The majority of requests were made by emergency medical services (601/1068, 56.3%), patients with an average age of 71.8 (SD 17.2) years were involved, and for 737 of 1068 cases (69%), SARS-CoV-2 had already been detected by a positive polymerase chain reaction test. In 59.8% (639/1068) of the concerned patients, further treatment by a general practitioner or outpatient presentation in a hospital could be initiated after appropriate advice, 27.2% (291/1068) of patients were admitted to normal wards, and 12.9% (138/1068) were directly transmitted to an intensive care unit. The operating costs of the CCCC amounted to more than €52,000 (US $60,031) per month. Of the 334 patients with detected SARS-CoV-2 who were referred via EMS or outpatient physicians, 302 (90.4%) were triaged and announced in advance by the CCCC. No other published economic analysis of COVID-19 coordination or management institutions at hospitals could be found.ConclusionsDespite the high cost of the CCCC, we were able to show that it is a beneficial concept to both the providing hospital and the public health system. However, the most important benefits of the CCCC are that it prevents hospitals from being overrun by patients and that it avoids situations in which physicians must weigh one patient’s life against another’s.     

A Systematic Review of Workplace Ergonomic Interventions with Economic Analyses

Introduction This article reports on a systematic review of workplace ergonomic interventions with economic evaluations. The review sought to answer the question: “what is the credible evidence that incremental investment in ergonomic interventions is worth undertaking?” Past efforts to synthesize evidence from this literature have focused on effectiveness, whereas this study synthesizes evidence on the cost-effectiveness/financial merits of such interventions. Methods Through a structured journal database search, 35 intervention studies were identified in nine industrial sectors. A qualitative synthesis approach, known as best evidence synthesis, was used rather than a quantitative approach because of the diversity of study designs and statistical analyses found across studies. Evidence on the financial merits of interventions was synthesized by industrial sector. Results In the manufacturing and warehousing sector strong evidence was found in support of the financial merits of ergonomic interventions from a firm perspective. In the administrative support and health care sectors moderate evidence was found, in the transportation sector limited evidence, and in remaining sectors insufficient evidence. Conclusions Most intervention studies focus on effectiveness. Few consider their financial merits. Amongst the few that do, several had exemplary economic analyses, although more than half of the studies had low quality economic analyses. This may be due to the low priority given to economic analysis in this literature. Often only a small part of the overall evaluation of many studies focused on evaluating their cost-effectiveness.