11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
4 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical Outcomes, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Strategies for Adults Experiencing Sheltered Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the projected clinical outcomes and costs associated with strategies for reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections among people experiencing sheltered homelessness?

          Findings

          In this decision analytic model, daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of individuals who had positive symptom screening paired with nonhospital care site management of people with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was associated with a substantial decrease in infections and lowered costs over 4 months compared with no intervention across a wide range of epidemic scenarios. In a surging epidemic, adding periodic universal PCR testing to symptom screening and nonhospital care site management was associated with improved clinical outcomes at modestly increased costs.

          Meaning

          In this study, daily symptom screening with PCR testing of individuals who had positive symptom screening and use of alternative care sites for COVID-19 management among individuals experiencing sheltered homelessness were associated with substantially reduced new cases and costs compared with other strategies.

          Abstract

          This decision analytic model assesses the clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among US adults experiencing sheltered homelessness.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Approximately 356 000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the United States. They have high risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

          Objective

          To assess the estimated clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with strategies for COVID-19 management among adults experiencing sheltered homelessness.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This decision analytic model used a simulated cohort of 2258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston, Massachusetts. Cohort characteristics and costs were adapted from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were taken from published literature and national databases. Surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [R e], 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9, respectively) were examined. Costs were from a health care sector perspective, and the time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020.

          Exposures

          Daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of individuals with positive symptom screening results, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternative care sites (ACSs) for mild or moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing were each compared with no intervention.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Cumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case of COVID-19 prevented.

          Results

          The simulated population of 2258 sheltered homeless adults had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (9.04) years. Compared with no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild or moderate disease was associated with 37% fewer infections (1954 vs 1239) and 46% lower costs ($6.10 million vs $3.27 million) at an R e of 2.6, 75% fewer infections (538 vs 137) and 72% lower costs ($1.46 million vs $0.41 million) at an R e of 1.3, and 51% fewer infections (174 vs 85) and 51% lower costs ($0.54 million vs $0.26 million) at an R e of 0.9. Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with a further decrease in infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1000 at an R e of 2.6, $27 000 at an R e of 1.3, and $71 000 at an R e of 0.9. Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more expensive than other options. Compared with no intervention, temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was associated with 81% fewer infections (376) and 542% higher costs ($39.12 million) at an R e of 2.6, 82% fewer infections (95) and 2568% higher costs ($38.97 million) at an R e of 1.3, and 59% fewer infections (71) and 7114% higher costs ($38.94 million) at an R e of 0.9. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in SARS-CoV-2 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

          Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p<0·0001), and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL (18·42, 2·64–128·55; p=0·0033) on admission. Median duration of viral shedding was 20·0 days (IQR 17·0–24·0) in survivors, but SARS-CoV-2 was detectable until death in non-survivors. The longest observed duration of viral shedding in survivors was 37 days. Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China

            In December 2019, novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)-infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, China. The number of cases has increased rapidly but information on the clinical characteristics of affected patients is limited.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia

              Abstract Background The initial cases of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)–infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019 and January 2020. We analyzed data on the first 425 confirmed cases in Wuhan to determine the epidemiologic characteristics of NCIP. Methods We collected information on demographic characteristics, exposure history, and illness timelines of laboratory-confirmed cases of NCIP that had been reported by January 22, 2020. We described characteristics of the cases and estimated the key epidemiologic time-delay distributions. In the early period of exponential growth, we estimated the epidemic doubling time and the basic reproductive number. Results Among the first 425 patients with confirmed NCIP, the median age was 59 years and 56% were male. The majority of cases (55%) with onset before January 1, 2020, were linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, as compared with 8.6% of the subsequent cases. The mean incubation period was 5.2 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1 to 7.0), with the 95th percentile of the distribution at 12.5 days. In its early stages, the epidemic doubled in size every 7.4 days. With a mean serial interval of 7.5 days (95% CI, 5.3 to 19), the basic reproductive number was estimated to be 2.2 (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9). Conclusions On the basis of this information, there is evidence that human-to-human transmission has occurred among close contacts since the middle of December 2019. Considerable efforts to reduce transmission will be required to control outbreaks if similar dynamics apply elsewhere. Measures to prevent or reduce transmission should be implemented in populations at risk. (Funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and others.)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                22 December 2020
                December 2020
                22 December 2020
                : 3
                : 12
                : e2028195
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
                [2 ]Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Institute for Research, Quality, and Policy in Homeless Health Care, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, Boston, Massachusetts
                [4 ]Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
                [5 ]Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [6 ]Orthopedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                [7 ]Policy and Innovation eValuation in Orthopedic Treatments Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                [8 ]Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
                [9 ]Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
                [10 ]Division of General Academic Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
                [11 ]Harvard University Center for AIDS Research, Boston, Massachusetts
                [12 ]Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
                [13 ]Africa Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
                [14 ]Department of Epidemiology and Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [15 ]Africa Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
                [16 ]Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [17 ]MRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
                [18 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [19 ]Department of Operations, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: October 6, 2020.
                Published: December 22, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28195
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Baggett TP et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Kenneth A. Freedberg, MD, MSc, Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, 100 Cambridge St, Ste 1600, Boston, MA 02114 ( kfreedberg@ 123456mgh.harvard.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Freedberg and Baggett had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Kazemian and Freedberg contributed equally to this work.
                Concept and design: Baggett, Scott, Le, Panella, Flanagan, Neilan, Siedner, Weinstein, Ciaranello, Kazemian, Freedberg.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Baggett, Le, Shebl, Panella, Losina, Gaeta, Neilan, Hyle, Mohareb, Reddy, Harling, Ciaranello, Kazemian, Freedberg.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Baggett, Shebl, Kazemian, Freedberg.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Le, Shebl, Losina, Ciaranello.
                Obtained funding: Freedberg.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Scott, Le, Panella, Flanagan, Gaeta, Neilan, Ciaranello.
                Supervision: Baggett, Scott, Kazemian, Freedberg.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Baggett reported receiving personal fees from UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr Hyle reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Massachusetts General Hospital and receiving royalties from UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr Mohareb reported receiving grants from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases outside the submitted work. Dr Weinstein reported receiving personal fees from Quadrant Health Economics and PrecisionHEOR outside the submitted work. Dr Ciaranello reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Freedberg reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, the French National Agency for AIDS Research, and Unitaid outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This work was supported by grant T32 AI007433 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease to Dr Mohareb, grant K24 AR057827 from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases to Dr Losina, grant 210479/Z/18/Z from the Royal Society and Wellcome Trust to Dr Harling, and grant R37 AI058736-16S1 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease to Dr Freedberg.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors, and the study’s findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust, or other funders.
                Additional Contributions: We thank Elizabeth Lewis, MBA, and Agnes Leung, MHA, for their assistance with clinical and cost data from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. We also thank Guner Ege Eskibozkurt, BA, and Mary Feser, BA (Medical Practice Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston), for research assistance. All acknowledged individuals contributed as part of their institutional roles.
                Article
                zoi200903
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.28195
                7756240
                33351082
                71b3d2bf-835c-4f92-a4ca-24102f14a99c
                Copyright 2020 Baggett TP et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 7 August 2020
                : 6 October 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Infectious Diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article