Search

Background We aimed to quantify the unknown losses in health-related quality of life of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases using quality-adjusted lifedays (QALDs) and the recommended EQ-5D instrument in England. Methods Prospective cohort study of nonhospitalized, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2–positive (SARS-CoV-2–positive) cases aged 12–85 years and followed up for 6 months from 1 December 2020, with cross-sectional comparison to SARS-CoV-2–negative controls. Main outcomes were QALD losses; physical symptoms; and COVID-19-related private expenditures. We analyzed results using multivariable regressions with post hoc weighting by age and sex, and conditional logistic regressions for the association of each symptom and EQ-5D limitation on cases and controls. Results Of 548 cases (mean age 41.1 years; 61.5% female), 16.8% reported physical symptoms at month 6 (most frequently extreme tiredness, headache, loss of taste and/or smell, and shortness of breath). Cases reported more limitations with doing usual activities than controls. Almost half of cases spent a mean of £18.1 on nonprescription drugs (median: £10.0), and 52.7% missed work or school for a mean of 12 days (median: 10). On average, all cases lost 13.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.7, 17.7) QALDs, whereas those reporting symptoms at month 6 lost 32.9 (95% CI: 24.5, 37.6) QALDs. Losses also increased with older age. Cumulatively, the health loss from morbidity contributes at least 18% of the total COVID-19-related disease burden in the England. Conclusions One in 6 cases report ongoing symptoms at 6 months, and 10% report prolonged loss of function compared to pre-COVID-19 baselines. A marked health burden was observed among older COVID-19 cases and those with persistent physical symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Internationally, key workers such as healthcare staff are advised to stay at home if they or household members experience coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–like symptoms. This potentially isolates/quarantines many staff without SARS-CoV-2, while not preventing transmission from staff with asymptomatic infection. We explored the impact of testing staff on absence durations from work and transmission risks to others. Methods We used a decision-analytic model for 1000 key workers to compare the baseline strategy of (S0) no RT-PCR testing of workers to testing workers (S1) with COVID-19–like symptoms in isolation, (S2) without COVID-19–like symptoms but in household quarantine, and (S3) all staff. We explored confirmatory re-testing scenarios of repeating all initial tests, initially positive tests, initially negative tests, or no re-testing. We varied all parameters, including the infection rate (0.1–20%), proportion asymptomatic (10–80%), sensitivity (60–95%), and specificity (90–100%). Results Testing all staff (S3) changes the risk of workplace transmission by −56.9 to +1.0 workers/1000 tests (with reductions throughout at RT-PCR sensitivity ≥65%), and absences by −0.5 to +3.6 days/test but at heightened testing needs of 989.6–1995.9 tests/1000 workers. Testing workers in household quarantine (S2) reduces absences the most by 3.0–6.9 days/test (at 47.0–210.4 tests/1000 workers), while increasing risk of workplace transmission by 0.02–49.5 infected workers/1000 tests (which can be minimized when re-testing initially negative tests). Conclusions Based on optimizing absence durations or transmission risk, our modeling suggests testing staff in household quarantine or all staff, depending on infection levels and testing capacities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In October 2012, a maternal pertussis vaccination program was implemented in England following an increased incidence and mortality in infants. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the program by comparing pertussis-related infant hospitalizations and deaths in 2012–2017 with nonvaccination scenarios. Despite considerable uncertainties, findings support the cost-effectiveness of the program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Norovirus places a substantial burden on healthcare systems, arising from infected patients, disease outbreaks, beds kept unoccupied for infection control, and staff absences due to infection. In settings with high rates of bed occupancy, opportunity costs arise from patients who cannot be admitted due to beds being unavailable. With several treatments and vaccines against norovirus in development, quantifying the expected economic burden is timely. Methods The number of inpatients with norovirus-associated gastroenteritis in England was modeled using infectious and noninfectious gastrointestinal Hospital Episode Statistics codes and laboratory reports of gastrointestinal pathogens collected at Public Health England. The excess length of stay from norovirus was estimated with a multistate model and local outbreak data. Unoccupied bed-days and staff absences were estimated from national outbreak surveillance. The burden was valued conventionally using accounting expenditures and wages, which we contrasted to the opportunity costs from forgone patients using a novel methodology. Results Between July 2013 and June 2016, 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.6%‒21.6%) of primary and 23.8% (95% CI, 20.6%‒29.9%) of secondary gastrointestinal diagnoses were norovirus attributable. Annually, the estimated median 290000 (interquartile range, 282000‒297000) occupied and unoccupied bed-days used for norovirus displaced 57800 patients. Conventional costs for the National Health Service reached £107.6 million; the economic burden approximated to £297.7 million and a loss of 6300 quality-adjusted life-years annually. Conclusions In England, norovirus is now the second-largest contributor of the gastrointestinal hospital burden. With the projected impact being greater than previously estimated, improved capture of relevant opportunity costs seems imperative for diseases such as norovirus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]