A Cost-Utility Analysis of Remote Pulse-Oximetry Monitoring of Patients With COVID-19

Abstract

Objectives Since 2020, COVID-19 has infected tens of millions and caused hundreds of thousands of fatalities in the United States. Infection waves lead to increased emergency department utilization and critical care admission for patients with respiratory distress. Although many individuals develop symptoms necessitating a ventilator, some patients with COVID-19 can remain at home to mitigate hospital overcrowding. Remote pulse-oximetry (pulse-ox) monitoring of moderately ill patients with COVID-19 can be used to monitor symptom escalation and trigger hospital visits, as needed. Methods We analyzed the cost-utility of remote pulse-ox monitoring using a Markov model with a 3-week time horizon and daily cycles from a US health sector perspective. Costs (US dollar 2020) and outcomes were derived from the University Hospitals’ real-world evidence and published literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY. We assessed model uncertainty using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results Model results demonstrated that remote monitoring dominates current standard care, by reducing costs ($11 472 saved) and improving outcomes (0.013 QALYs gained). There were 87% fewer hospitalizations and 77% fewer deaths among patients with access to remote pulse-ox monitoring. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not sensitive to uncertainty ranges in the model. Conclusions Patient with COVID-19 remote pulse-ox monitoring increases the specificity of those requiring follow-up care for escalating symptoms. We recommend remote monitoring adoption across health systems to economically manage COVID-19 volume surges, maintain patients’ comfort, reduce community infection spread, and carefully monitor needs of multiple individuals from one location by trained experts.

mRNA-based COVID-19 booster vaccination is highly effective and cost-effective in Australia

“…We developed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 booster vaccination (predominately mRNA vaccines, 3 months after 2 nd dose) in those aged ≥16 years in Australia. Markov models are widely used in economic evaluations of population interventions [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] . In one of our previous studies, we have used a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy of Pfizer-BioNTech among older adults in the United States (US) [27] .…”

The effects of skin pigmentation on the accuracy of pulse oximetry in measuring oxygen saturation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…A recent decision analytical Markov modelling study evaluated the cost-utility of remote pulse oximetry monitoring over a 3-week time horizon from a US health sector perspective. [70] It found that remote monitoring dominates current standard care, by saving USD $11472 and gaining QALYs of 0.013. Besides, people with access to remote monitoring had 87% fewer hospitalisations and 77% fewer deaths.…”

Home oxygen monitoring and therapy: learning from the pandemic

“…Some studies have demonstrated that remote monitoring programmes may be cost effective. A cost-effectiveness analysis of patients presenting to EDs with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 found that those discharged from ED on a remote oximetry pathway had lower rates of mortality, subsequent ED visits and intensive care admissions in the 3 weeks following presentation than those not on the pathway, amounting to an estimated saving of $11 472 per patient [ 43 ]. Importantly, this analysis was unable to account for the other clinical characteristics of those who did and did not receive the intervention.…”