Cost-Effectiveness of Combination of Baricitinib and Remdesivir in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in the United States: A Modelling Study

The cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin for guiding antibiotic prescribing in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19: part of the PEACH study

BACKGROUND

Many hospitals introduced procalcitonin (PCT) testing to help diagnose bacterial coinfection in individuals with COVID-19, and guide antibiotic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluating cost-effectiveness of using PCT to guide antibiotic decisions in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, as part of a wider research programme.

METHODS

Retrospective individual-level data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were collected from 11 NHS acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards from England and Wales, which varied in their use of baseline PCT testing during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. A matched analysis (part of a wider analysis reported elsewhere) created groups of patients whose PCT was/was not tested at baseline. A model was created with combined decision tree/Markov phases, parameterized with quality-of-life/unit cost estimates from the literature, and used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was judged at a £20 000/QALY threshold. Uncertainty was characterized using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

People who had baseline PCT testing had shorter general ward/ICU stays and spent less time on antibiotics, though with overlap between the groups' 95% CIs. Those with baseline PCT testing accrued more QALYs (8.76 versus 8.62) and lower costs (£9830 versus £10 700). The point estimate was baseline PCT testing being dominant over no baseline testing, though with uncertainty: the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.579 with a 1 year horizon and 0.872 with a lifetime horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Using PCT to guide antibiotic therapy in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 is more likely to be cost-effective than not, albeit with uncertainty.

Toward an Improved Electrocatalytic Determination of Immunomodulator COVID Medication Baricitinib Using Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube Nickel Hybrid

The study presents a first electrochemical method for the determination of the immunomodulator drug Baricitinib (BARI), crucial in managing COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support. A unique electrode was developed by modifying graphite carbon nickel nanoparticles (NiNPs) with functionalized multiwalled carbon nanotubes (f.MWCNTs), resulting in nanohybrids tailored for highly sensitive BARI detection. Comparative analysis revealed the superior electrocatalytic performance of the nanohybrid-modified electrode over unmodified counterparts and other modifications, attributed to synergistic interactions between f.MWCNTs and nickel nanoparticles. Under optimized conditions, the sensors exhibited linear detection within a concentration range from 4.00 × 10-8 to 5.56 × 10-5 M, with a remarkably low detection limit of 9.65 × 10-9 M. Notably, the modified electrode displayed minimal interference from common substances and demonstrated high precision in detecting BARI in plasma and medicinal formulations, underscoring its clinical relevance and potential impact on COVID-19 treatment strategies.

Lessons Learned from Model-based Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Drug Treatments Under Pandemic Circumstances: Results from a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Following clinical research of potential coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments, numerous decision-analytic models have been developed. Due to pandemic circumstances, clinical evidence was limited and modelling choices were made under great uncertainty. This study aimed to analyse key methodological characteristics of model-based economic evaluations of COVID-19 drug treatments, and specifically focused on modelling choices which pertain to disease severity levels during hospitalisation, model structure, sources of effectiveness and quality of life and long-term sequelae.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review and searched key databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus) for original articles on model-based full economic evaluations of COVID-19 drug treatments. Studies focussing on vaccines, diagnostic techniques and non-pharmaceutical interventions were excluded. The search was last rerun on 22 July 2023. Results were narratively synthesised in tabular form. Several aspects were categorised into rubrics to enable comparison across studies.

RESULTS

Of the 1047 records identified, 27 were included, and 23 studies (85.2%) differentiated patients by disease severity in the hospitalisation phase. Patients were differentiated by type of respiratory support, level of care management, a combination of both or symptoms. A Markov model was applied in 16 studies (59.3%), whether or not preceded by a decision tree or an epidemiological model. Most cost-utility analyses lacked the incorporation of COVID-19-specific health utility values. Of ten studies with a lifetime horizon, seven adjusted general population estimates to account for long-term sequelae (i.e. mortality, quality of life and costs), lasting for 1 year, 5 years, or a patient's lifetime. The most often reported parameter influencing the outcome of the analysis was related to treatment effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

The results illustrate the variety in modelling approaches of COVID-19 drug treatments and address the need for a more standardized approach in model-based economic evaluations of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRY

Protocol registered in PROSPERO under CRD42023407646.

Evidence of quality of life for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a scoping review

Background

Information on the quality of life of people hospitalised with COVID-19 is important, both in assessing the burden of disease and the cost-effectiveness of treatments. However, there were potential barriers to collecting such evidence.

Objective

To review the existing evidence on quality of life for people hospitalised with COVID-19, with a focus on the amount of evidence available and methods used.

Design

A scoping review with systematic searches.

Results

A total of 35 papers were selected for data extraction. The most common study type was economic evaluation (N = 13), followed by cross-sectional (N = 10). All economic evaluations used published utility values for other conditions to represent COVID-19 inpatients' quality of life. The most popular quality-of-life survey measure was the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (N = 8). There were 12 studies that used a mental health-related survey and 12 that used a sleep-related survey. Five studies used EQ-5D, but only one collected responses from people in the acute phase of COVID-19. Studies reported a negative impact on quality of life for people hospitalised with COVID-19, although many studies did not include a formal comparison group.

Limitations

Although it used systematic searches, this was not a full systematic review.

Conclusion

Quality-of-life data were collected from people hospitalised with COVID-19 from relatively early in the pandemic. However, there was a lack of consensus as to what survey measures to use, and few studies used generic health measures. Economic evaluations for COVID-19 treatments did not use utilities collected from people with COVID-19. In future health crises, researchers should be vigilant for opportunities to collect quality-of-life data from hospitalised patients but should try to co-ordinate as well as ensuring generic health measures are used more.

Funding

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR132254.

Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations

Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables. Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation. Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is being studied and used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to systematically identify, critically evaluate, and summarize the findings of the studies on the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this systematic review, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 2019 and 2022. We included all full economic evaluations of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Data were summarized in a structured and narrative manner.

RESULTS

Out of 616 articles obtained in this literature search, 12 studies were included in the final analysis. The mean score of the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) for the studies was 87.66 (high quality). All studies were conducted in high-income countries (eight studies in the USA and one study in England), except for three studies from middle-to-high-income countries (China, South Africa, and Turkey). Six studies conducted their economic analysis in terms of a health system perspective; five studies conducted their economic analysis from a payer perspective; three studies from the perspective of a health care provider. The results of five studies showed that remdesivir was cost-effective compared to standard treatment. Furthermore, the therapeutic strategy of combining remdesivir with baricitinib was cost-effective compared to remdesivir alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the present study, remdesivir appears to be cost-effective in comparison with the standard of care in China, Turkey, and South Africa. Studies conducted in the United States show conflicting results, and combining remdesivir with baricitinib is cost-effective compared with remdesivir alone. However, the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in low-income countries remains unknown. Thus, more studies in different countries are required to determine the cost-effectiveness of this drug.

How to use COVID-19 antiviral drugs in patients with chronic kidney disease

Antiviral drugs such as Remdesivir (Veklury), Nirmatrelvir with Ritonavir (Paxlovid), Azvudine, and Molnupiravir (Lagevrio) can reduce the risk for severe and fatal Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19. Although chronic kidney disease is a highly prevalent risk factor for severe and fatal COVID-19, most clinical trials with these drugs excluded patients with impaired kidney function. Advanced CKD is associated with a state of secondary immunodeficiency (SIDKD), which increases the susceptibility to severe COVID-19, COVID-19 complications, and the risk of hospitalization and mortality among COVID-19 patients. The risk to develop COVID-19 related acute kidney injury is higher in patients with precedent CKD. Selecting appropriate therapies for COVID-19 patients with impaired kidney function is a challenge for healthcare professionals. Here, we discuss the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of COVID-19-related antiviral drugs with a focus on their potential use and dosing in COVID-19 patients with different stages of CKD. Additionally, we describe the adverse effects and precautions to be taken into account when using these antivirals in COVID-19 patients with CKD. Lastly, we also discuss about the use of monoclonal antibodies in COVID-19 patients with kidney disease and related complications.

The Impact of Funding Inpatient Treatments for COVID-19 on Health Equity in the United States: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) to evaluate how Medicare funding of inpatient COVID-19 treatments affected health equity in the United States.

METHODS

A DCEA, based on an existing cost-effectiveness analysis model, was conducted from the perspective of a single US payer, Medicare. The US population was divided based on race and ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, and non-Hispanic white) and county-level social vulnerability index (5 quintile groups) into 15 equity-relevant subgroups. The baseline distribution of quality-adjusted life expectancy was estimated across the equity subgroups. Opportunity costs were estimated by converting total spend on COVID-19 inpatient treatments into health losses, expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using base-case assumptions of an opportunity cost threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained and an equal distribution of opportunity costs across equity-relevant subgroups.

RESULTS

More socially vulnerable populations received larger per capita health benefits due to higher COVID-19 incidence and baseline in-hospital mortality. The total direct medical cost of inpatient COVID-19 interventions in the United States in 2020 was estimated at $25.83 billion with an estimated net benefit of 735 569 QALYs after adjusting for opportunity costs. Funding inpatient COVID-19 treatment reduced the population-level burden of health inequality by 0.234%. Conclusions remained robust across scenario and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first DCEA to quantify the equity implications of funding COVID-19 treatments in the United States. Medicare funding of COVID-19 treatments in the United States could improve overall health while reducing existing health inequalities.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an economic evaluation as part of the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir.

METHODS

Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed.

RESULTS

The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation.

INTERPRETATION

From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies

Background

We aimed to quantitatively summarise the health economic evaluation evidence of prevention and control programs addressing COVID-19 globally.

Methods

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the economic and health benefit of interventions for COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library of economic evaluation from December 31, 2019, to March 22, 2022, to identify relevant literature. Meta-analyses were done using random-effects models to estimate pooled incremental net benefit (INB). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021267475.

Results

Of 16 860 studies identified, 85 articles were included in the systematic review, and 25 articles (10 studies about non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs), five studies about vaccinations and 10 studies about treatments) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled INB of NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments were $1378.10 (95% CI = $1079.62, $1676.59), $254.80 (95% CI = $169.84, $339.77) and $4115.11 (95% CI = $1631.09, $6599.14), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Conclusions

NPIs, vaccinations, and treatments are all cost-effective in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. However, evidence was mostly from high-income and middle-income countries. Further studies from lower-income countries are needed.