Health, social, and economic characteristics of patients enrolled in a COVID-19 recovery program.

At least one in five people who recovered from acute COVID-19 have persistent clinical symptoms, however little is known about the impact on quality-of-life (QOL), socio-economic characteristics, fatigue, work and productivity. We present a cross-sectional descriptive characterization of the clinical symptoms, QOL, socioeconomic characteristics, fatigue, work and productivity of a cohort of patients enrolled in the MedStar COVID Recovery Program (MSCRP). Our participants include people with mental and physical symptoms following recovery from acute COVID-19 and enrolled in MSCRP, which is designed to provide comprehensive multidisciplinary care and aid in recovery. Participants completed medical questionnaires and the PROMIS-29, Fatigue Severity Scale, Work and Productivity Impairment Questionnaire, and Social Determinants of Health surveys. Participants (n = 267, mean age 47.6 years, 23.2% hospitalized for COVID-19) showed impaired QOL across all domains assessed with greatest impairment in physical functioning (mean 39.1 ± 7.4) and fatigue (mean 60.6 ±. 9.7). Housing or "the basics" were not afforded by 19% and food insecurity was reported in 14% of the cohort. Participants reported elevated fatigue (mean 4.7 ± 1.1) and impairment with activity, work productivity, and on the job effectiveness was reported in 63%, 61%, and 56% of participants, respectively. Patients with persistent mental and physical symptoms following initial illness report impairment in QOL, socioeconomic hardships, increased fatigue and decreased work and productivity. Our cohort highlights that even those who are not hospitalized and recover from less severe COVID-19 can have long-term impairment, therefore designing, implementing, and scaling programs to focus on mitigating impairment and restoring function are greatly needed.

Economic Evaluation of Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation vs Chest Radiography in Critically Ill Patients: A Labor Cost Model.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence suggesting that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is faster and non-inferior for confirming position and excluding pneumothorax after central venous catheter (CVC) placement compared to traditional radiography, millions of chest radiographs (CXR) are performed annually for this purpose. Whether the use of POCUS results in cost savings compared to CXR is less clear but could represent a relative advantage in implementation efforts. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the labor cost difference for POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC position confirmation practices. METHODS: We developed a model to evaluate the per patient difference in labor cost between POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC confirmation at our local urban, tertiary academic institution. We used internal cost data from our institution to populate the variables in our model. RESULTS: The estimated labor cost per patient was $18.48 using CXR compared to $14.66 for POCUS, resulting in a net direct cost savings of $3.82 (21%) per patient using POCUS for CVC confirmation. CONCLUSION: In this study comparing the labor costs of two approaches for CVC confirmation, the more efficient alternative (POCUS-guided) is not more expensive than traditional CXR. Performing an economic analysis framed in terms of labor costs and work efficiency may influence stakeholders and facilitate earlier adoption of POCUS for CVC confirmation.

Resources and Geographic Access to Care for Severe Pediatric Pneumonia in Four Resource-limited Settings.

Rationale: Pneumonia is the leading cause of death in children worldwide. Identifying and appropriately managing severe pneumonia in a timely manner improves outcomes. Little is known about the readiness of healthcare facilities to manage severe pediatric pneumonia in low-resource settings. Objectives: As part of the HAPIN (Household Air Pollution Intervention Network) trial, we sought to identify healthcare facilities that were adequately resourced to manage severe pediatric pneumonia in Jalapa, Guatemala (J-GUA); Puno, Peru (P-PER); Kayonza, Rwanda (K-RWA); and Tamil Nadu, India (T-IND). We conducted a facility-based survey of available infrastructure, staff, equipment, and medical consumables. Facilities were georeferenced, and a road network analysis was performed. Measurements and Main Results: Of the 350 healthcare facilities surveyed, 13% had adequate resources to manage severe pneumonia, 37% had pulse oximeters, and 44% had supplemental oxygen. Mean (±SD) travel time to an adequately resourced facility was 41 ± 19 minutes in J-GUA, 99 ± 64 minutes in P-PER, 40 ± 19 minutes in K-RWA, and 31 ± 19 minutes in T-IND. Expanding pulse oximetry coverage to all facilities reduced travel time by 44% in J-GUA, 29% in P-PER, 29% in K-RWA, and 11% in T-IND (all P < 0.001). Conclusions: Most healthcare facilities in low-resource settings of the HAPIN study area were inadequately resourced to care for severe pediatric pneumonia. Early identification of cases and timely referral is paramount. The provision of pulse oximeters to all health facilities may be an effective approach to identify cases earlier and refer them for care and in a timely manner.

A risk assessment tool for resumption of research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic for field trials in low resource settings.

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial conducted in rural, low-resource settings, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize the integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest scientific understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. National and local government recommendations provided the minimum safety guidelines for our work. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential viral aerosolization while performing the activity. For each activity, one of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities that can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we were able to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our staff, participants, local communities, and funders. This framework can be tailored to other research studies conducted in similar settings during the current pandemic, as well as potential future outbreaks with similar transmission dynamics. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov NCT02944682 on October 26. 2016 .

A Risk Assessment Tool for Resumption of Research Activities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential aerosolization while performing the activity. One of of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities which can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we can compare trial activities using the same criteria. This approach allows us to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our participants, local communities, and funders. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02944682).

Indwelling Pleural Catheter Drainage Strategy for Malignant Effusion: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Rationale: The likelihood of achieving pleurodesis after indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) placement for malignant pleural effusion varies with the specific drainage strategy used: symptom-guided drainage, daily drainage, or talc instillation through the IPC (IPC + talc). The relative cost-effectiveness of one strategy over the other is unknown.Objectives: We performed a decision tree model-based analysis to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of each IPC drainage strategy from a healthcare system perspective.Methods: We developed a decision tree model using theoretical event probability data derived from three randomized clinical trials and used 2019 Medicare reimbursement data for cost estimation. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over an analytical horizon of 6 months with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to measure the uncertainty surrounding base case estimates.Results: IPC + talc was a cost-effective alternative to symptom-guided drainage, with an ICER of $59,729/QALY. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that this strategy was favored in 54% of simulations. However, symptom-guided drainage was cost effective for pleurodesis rates >20% and for life expectancy <4 months. Daily drainage was not cost effective in any scenario, including for patients with nonexpandable lung, in whom it had an ICER of $2,474,612/QALY over symptom-guided drainage.Conclusions: For patients with malignant pleural effusion and an expandable lung, IPC + talc may be cost effective relative to symptom-guided drainage, although considerable uncertainty exists around this estimation. Daily IPC drainage is not a cost-effective strategy under any circumstance.

A Systematic Review to Evaluate the Association between Clean Cooking Technologies and Time Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Interventions implementing clean fuels to mitigate household air pollution in low- and middle-income countries have focused on environmental and health outcomes, but few have evaluated time savings. We performed a systematic review, searching for studies of clean fuel interventions that measured time use. A total of 868 manuscripts were identified that met the search criteria, but only 2 met the inclusion criteria. Both were cross-sectional and were conducted in rural India. The first surveyed the female head of household (141 using biogas and 58 using biomass) and reported 1.2 h saved per day collecting fuel and 0.7 h saved cooking, resulting in a combined 28.9 days saved over an entire year. The second surveyed the head of household (37 using biogas and 68 using biomass, 13% female) and reported 1.5 h saved per day collecting fuel, or 22.8 days saved over a year. Based on these time savings, we estimated that clean fuel use could result in a 3.8% or 4.7% increase in daily income, respectively, not including time or costs for fuel procurement. Clean fuel interventions could save users time and money. Few studies have evaluated this potential benefit, suggesting that prospective studies or randomized controlled trials are needed to adequately measure gains.

Understanding the economic impact of introducing a new procedure: calculating downstream revenue of endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration as a model.

Over the last decade, endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) evolved into a validated and powerful diagnostic tool. Although it is integral to medical care in some health-care systems, others struggle to justify its purchase based on diminishing reimbursement. In analyzing its value to a health-care system, looking at procedural reimbursement alone will grossly underestimate its economic impact. Downstream revenue has been defined by administrators as revenue captured after patients use one hospital service and then use others. By analyzing consecutive EBUS cases and taking downstream revenue into account, $2.4 million in collections was attributed to 97 patients who were newly referred for this procedure.