Outpatient surveillance programme for health workers with COVID 19 in Mexico: an observational study of ambulatory treatment and early hospitalization.

Introduction: International guidelines recommend hospital care for patients with severe Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), but fragile health care systems struggle to cope with high number of admissions, placing patients at risk of receiving substandard care. We describe an outpatient ambulatory surveillance and treatment strategy (OPAT) for health care workers (HCWs) with severe COVID-19 during low hospital bed availability periods in Mexico City. Methods: In this observational, descriptive, retrospective study, we included HCWs with severe disease for whom there were no hospital beds available at the time of evaluation. We provided daily assessments by infectious disease specialists, daily ambulatory steroid, oral thromboprophylaxis and domiciliary low-dose oxygen. We recorded the number of patients who recovered, were hospitalized or died on follow-up. Results: From 18 March 2020 to 16 July 2021, 1739 HCWs attended our service. A total of 540 were diagnosed with COVID-19. Seventy-four had severe COVID-19 and needed hospitalization. Immediate hospitalization was not possible in 56 patients who were sent to the OPAT and included in our study. Twenty-four patients subsequently required hospitalization and 32 recovered as outpatients. Conclusions: We describe a feasible and safe outpatient management strategy for HCWs with severe COVID-19 in a low-resource setting.

Early Outpatient Treatment With Remdesivir in Patients at High Risk for Severe COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with remdesivir in high-risk patients, including those with immunosuppression of different causes, has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of early remdesivir treatment among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk of progression. Methods: This prospective cohort comparative study was conducted in a tertiary referral center in Mexico City. Patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression were treated with an ambulatory 3-day course of remdesivir. The primary efficacy composite outcome was hospitalization or death at 28 days after symptom onset. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify associations with the primary outcome. Results: From December 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022, a total of 196 high-risk patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 126 were included in this study (43%, 54/126, received remdesivir; 57%, 72/126, did not receive remdesivir). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups; autoimmune diseases (39/126), solid organ transplant (31/126), and malignant neoplasms (24/126) were the most common immunocompromising conditions. Diabetes mellitus was strongly associated with the primary outcome in both groups. Prior severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection or vaccination was not independently associated with COVID-19 progression. Treatment with remdesivir significantly reduced the odds of hospitalization or death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.44; P < .01). Conclusions: Early outpatient treatment with remdesivir significantly reduces hospitalization or death by 84% in high-risk, majority immunosuppressed patients with Omicron variant COVID-19.

Cost-utility analysis of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in the Brazilian national health system.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) has been used for decades in different countries to reduce hospitalization rates, with favorable clinical and economic outcomes. This study assesses the cost-utility of OPAT compared to inpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (IPAT) from the perspective of a public university hospital and the Brazilian National Health System (Unified Health System -SUS). METHODS: Prospective study with adult patients undergoing OPAT at an infusion center, compared to IPAT. Clinical outcomes and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were assessed, as well as a micro-costing. Cost-utility analysis from the hospital and SUS perspectives were conducted by means of a decision tree, within a 30-day horizon time. RESULTS: Forty cases of OPAT (1112 days) were included and monitored, with a favorable outcome in 97.50%. OPAT compared to IPAT generated overall savings of 31.86% from the hospital perspective and 26.53% from the SUS perspective. The intervention reduced costs, with an incremental cost-utility ratio of -44,395.68/QALY for the hospital and -48,466.70/QALY for the SUS, with better cost-utility for treatment times greater than 14 days. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the model. CONCLUSION: Our economic assessment demonstrated that, in the Brazilian context, OPAT is a cost-saving strategy both for hospitals and for the SUS.

Economic evaluation of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) consists of providing antimicrobial therapy by parenteral infusion without hospitalization. A systematic review was performed to compare OPAT and hospitalization as health care modalities from an economic perspective. Areas covered: We identified 1455 articles using 13 electronic databases and manual searches. Two independent reviewers identified 35 studies conducted between 1978 and 2016. We observed high heterogeneity in the following: countries, infection site, OPAT strategies and outcomes analyzed. Of these, 88% had a retrospective observational design and one was a randomized trial. With respect to economic analyses, 71% of the studies considered the cost-consequences, 11% cost minimization, 6% cost-benefit, 6% cost-utility analyses and 6% cost effectiveness. Considering all 35 studies, the general OPAT cost saving was 57.19% (from -13.03% to 95.47%). Taking into consideration only high-quality studies (6 comparative studies), the cost saving declined by 16.54% (from -13.03% to 46.86%). Expert commentary: Although most studies demonstrate that OPAT is cost-effective, the magnitude of this effect is compromised by poor methodological quality and heterogeneity. Economic assessments of the issue are needed using more rigorous methodologies that include a broad range of perspectives to identify the real magnitude of economic savings in different settings and OPAT modalities.