The cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin for guiding antibiotic prescribing in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19: part of the PEACH study.

BACKGROUND: Many hospitals introduced procalcitonin (PCT) testing to help diagnose bacterial coinfection in individuals with COVID-19, and guide antibiotic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Evaluating cost-effectiveness of using PCT to guide antibiotic decisions in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, as part of a wider research programme. METHODS: Retrospective individual-level data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were collected from 11 NHS acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards from England and Wales, which varied in their use of baseline PCT testing during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. A matched analysis (part of a wider analysis reported elsewhere) created groups of patients whose PCT was/was not tested at baseline. A model was created with combined decision tree/Markov phases, parameterized with quality-of-life/unit cost estimates from the literature, and used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was judged at a £20 000/QALY threshold. Uncertainty was characterized using bootstrapping. RESULTS: People who had baseline PCT testing had shorter general ward/ICU stays and spent less time on antibiotics, though with overlap between the groups' 95% CIs. Those with baseline PCT testing accrued more QALYs (8.76 versus 8.62) and lower costs (£9830 versus £10 700). The point estimate was baseline PCT testing being dominant over no baseline testing, though with uncertainty: the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.579 with a 1 year horizon and 0.872 with a lifetime horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Using PCT to guide antibiotic therapy in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 is more likely to be cost-effective than not, albeit with uncertainty.

Long-term health conditions and UK labour market outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Long-term health conditions can affect labour market outcomes. COVID-19 may have increased labour market inequalities, e.g. due to restricted opportunities for clinically vulnerable people. Evaluating COVID-19's impact could help target support. AIM: To quantify the effect of several long-term conditions on UK labour market outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare them to pre-pandemic outcomes. METHODS: The Understanding Society COVID-19 survey collected responses from around 20,000 UK residents in nine waves from April 2020-September 2021. Participants employed in January/February 2020 with a variety of long-term conditions were matched with people without the condition but with similar baseline characteristics. Models estimated probability of employment, hours worked and earnings. We compared these results with results from a two-year pre-pandemic period. We also modelled probability of furlough and home-working frequency during COVID-19. RESULTS: Most conditions (asthma, arthritis, emotional/nervous/psychiatric problems, vascular/pulmonary/liver conditions, epilepsy) were associated with reduced employment probability and/or hours worked during COVID-19, but not pre-pandemic. Furlough was more likely for people with pulmonary conditions. People with arthritis and cancer were slower to return to in-person working. Few effects were seen for earnings. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 had a disproportionate impact on people with long-term conditions' labour market outcomes.