Cost Effectiveness of Strategies for Caring for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Tanzania

Hiral Anil Shah, Tim Baker, Carl Otto Schell, August Kuwawenaruwa, Khamis Awadh, Karima Khalid, Angela Kairu, Vincent Were, Edwine Barasa, Peter Baker and Lorna Guinness ()
Additional contact information
Hiral Anil Shah: Center for Global Development
Tim Baker: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Carl Otto Schell: Karolinska Institutet
August Kuwawenaruwa: Ifakara Health Institute
Khamis Awadh: Ifakara Health Institute
Karima Khalid: Ifakara Health Institute
Angela Kairu: KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme
Vincent Were: KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme
Edwine Barasa: KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme
Peter Baker: Center for Global Development
Lorna Guinness: Center for Global Development

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2023, vol. 7, issue 4, No 3, 537-552

Abstract: Abstract Background The resources for critical care are limited in many settings, exacerbating the significant morbidity and mortality associated with critical illness. Budget constraints can lead to choices between investing in advanced critical care (e.g. mechanical ventilators in intensive care units) or more basic critical care such as Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC; e.g. vital signs monitoring, oxygen therapy, and intravenous fluids). Methods We investigated the cost effectiveness of providing EECC and advanced critical care in Tanzania in comparison with providing ‘no critical care’ or ‘district hospital-level critical care’ using coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a tracer condition. We developed an open-source Markov model ( https://github.com/EECCnetwork/POETIC_CEA ) to estimate costs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted, using a provider perspective, a 28-day time horizon, patient outcomes obtained from an elicitation method involving a seven-member expert group, a normative costing study, and published literature. We performed a univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of our results., Results EECC is cost effective 94% and 99% of the time when compared with no critical care (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $37 [−$9 to $790] per DALY averted) and district hospital-level critical care (ICER $14 [−$200 to $263] per DALY averted), respectively, relative to the lowest identified estimate of the willingness-to-pay threshold for Tanzania ($101 per DALY averted). Advanced critical care is cost effective 27% and 40% of the time, when compared with the no critical care or district hospital-level critical care scenarios, respectively. Conclusion For settings where there is limited or no critical care delivery, implementation of EECC could be a highly cost-effective investment. It could reduce mortality and morbidity for critically ill COVID-19 patients, and its cost effectiveness falls within the range considered ‘highly cost effective’. Further research is needed to explore the potential of EECC to generate even greater benefits and value for money when patients with diagnoses other than COVID-19 are accounted for.

Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00418-x Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00418-x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00418-x

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics - Open from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().