Author:
Suthutvoravut Unyaporn,Kunakorntham Patratorn,Semayai Anchisatha,Tansawet Amarit,Pattanaprateep Oraluck,Piebpien Pongsathorn,Numthavaj Pawin,Thakkinstian Ammarin,Atiksawedparit Pongsakorn
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Management of COVID-19 patients with mild and moderate symptoms could be isolated at home isolation (HI), community isolation (CI) or hospitel. However, it was still unclear which strategy was more cost-effective. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate this.
Methods
This study used data from patients who initially stayed at HI, CI, and hospitel under supervision of Ramathibodi Hospital between April and October 2021. Outcomes of interest were hospitalisation and mortality. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) was calculated based on hospital perspective using home isolation as the reference.
Results
From 7,077 patients, 4,349 2,356, and 372 were admitted at hospitel, HI, and CI, respectively. Most patients were females (57.04%) and the mean age was 40.42 (SD = 16.15). Average durations of stay were 4.47, 3.35, and 3.91 days for HI, CI, and hospitel, respectively. The average cost per day for staying in these corresponding places were 24.22, 63.69, and 65.23 US$. For hospitalisation, the ICER for hospitel was at 41.93 US$ to avoid one hospitalisation in 1,000 patients when compared to HI, while CI had more cost, but less cases avoided. The ICER for hospitel and CI were at 46.21 and 866.17 US$ to avoid one death in 1,000 patients.
Conclusions
HI may be cost-effective isolated strategy for preventing hospitalisation and death in developing countries with limited resources.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC