The Cost-Effectiveness of Remdesivir for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Admission screening testing of patients and staff N95 masks are cost-effective in reducing COVID-19 hospital acquired infections

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 outbreaks in acute care settings can have severe consequences for patients due to their underlying vulnerabilities, and can be costly due to additional patient bed days and the need to replace isolating staff. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of clinical staff N95 masks and admission screening testing of patients to reduce COVID-19 hospital-acquired infections.

METHODS

An agent-based model was calibrated to data on 178 outbreaks in acute care settings in Victoria, Australia between October 2021 and July 2023. Outbreaks were simulated under different combinations of staff masking (surgical, N95) and patient admission screening testing (none, RAT, PCR). For each scenario, average diagnoses, COVID-19 deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from discharged patients, and costs (masks, testing, patient COVID-19 bed days, staff replacement costs while isolating) from acute COVID-19 were estimated over a 12-month period.

FINDINGS

Compared to no admission screening testing and staff surgical masks, all scenarios were cost saving with health gains. Staff N95s + RAT admission screening of patients was the cheapest, saving A$78.4M [95%UI 44.4M-135.3M] and preventing 1,543 [1,070-2,146] deaths state-wide per annum. Both interventions were individually beneficial: staff N95s in isolation saved A$54.7M and 854 deaths state-wide per annum, while RAT admission screening of patients in isolation saved A$57.6M and 1,176 deaths state-wide per annum.

INTERPRETATION

In acute care settings, staff N95 mask use and admission screening testing of patients can reduce hospital-acquired COVID-19 infections, COVID-19 deaths, and are cost-saving because of reduced patient bed days and staff replacement needs.

Owner experience and veterinary involvement with unlicensed GS-441524 treatment of feline infectious peritonitis: a prospective cohort study

Introduction

Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP) has historically been a fatal coronavirus disease in cats. In recent years, the therapeutic agent GS-441524, developed by Gilead Sciences, was found to be a successful treatment for FIP in most patients in clinical trials. However, this particular drug has remained stalled in the therapeutic pipeline, leaving patients and cat owners without a licensed medication. In the meantime, online social media platforms began to emerge, connecting cat owners with a community of citizen non-veterinary professionals sourcing unlicensed GS-441524.

Methods

This study prospectively followed participants (N = 141) that successfully completed 12 weeks of treatment, capturing their treatment experiences with self-administered GS-441524-like medication. A one-time survey was administered to enrolled participants with mixed format of questions (open-ended and multiple-choice) asking about treatment administration techniques, observed side effects of GS-441524, accrued cost, veterinarian involvement, impact on the cat-human bond, and social media usage.

Results

Our results show cat owners experienced a shift in treatment modality from injectable GS-441524 to pill formulation across the treatment period. The average total cost of medication has decreased since 2021 to approximately USD 3100, and participants reported the human-animal bond being affected negatively. Additionally, there was an increased trend in veterinarian awareness of GS-441524-like therapeutics and monitoring of clients undergoing treatment. Social media usage was reported as being important at the beginning of treatment to establish treatment administration but lessened by the end of treatment.

Discussion

This study is the first detailed, prospective account of owner experiences with unlicensed GS-441524, raising an important discussion surrounding citizen veterinary medicine.

COVID-19-related health utility values and changes in COVID-19 patients and the general population: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To summarise the diverse literature reporting the impact of COVID-19 on health utility in COVID-19 patients as well as in general populations being affected by COVID-19 control policies.

METHODS

A literature search up to April 2023 was conducted to identify papers reporting health utility in COVID-19 patients or in COVID-19-affected general populations. We present a narrative synthesis of the health utility values/losses of the retained studies to show the mean health utility values/losses with 95% confidence intervals. Mean utility values/losses for categories defined by medical attendance and data collection time were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 98 studies-68 studies on COVID-19 patients and 30 studies on general populations-were retained for detailed review. Mean (95% CI) health utility values were 0.83 (0.81, 0.86), 0.78 (0.73, 0.83), 0.82 (0.78, 0.86) and 0.71 (0.65, 0.78) for general populations, non-hospitalised, hospitalised and ICU patients, respectively, irrespective of the data collection time. Mean utility losses in patients and general populations ranged from 0.03 to 0.34 and from 0.02 to 0.18, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides a summary of the health utility impact of COVID-19 and COVID-19 control policies. COVID-19-affected populations were reported to have poor health utility, while a high degree of heterogeneity was observed across studies. Population- and/or country-specific health utility is recommended for use in future economic evaluation on COVID-19-related interventions.

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.

Clinical trials and their impact on policy during COVID-19: a review

Background

Of over 8,000 recorded randomised trials addressing COVID-19, around 80% were of treatments, and 17% have reported results. Approximately 1% were adaptive or platform trials, with 25 having results available, across 29 journal articles and 10 preprint articles.

Methods

We conducted an extensive literature review to address four questions about COVID-19 trials, particularly the role and impact of platform/adaptive trials and lessons learned.

Results

The key findings were: Q1. Social value in conducting trials and uptake into policy? COVID-19 drug treatments varied substantially and changed considerably, with drugs found effective in definitive clinical trials replacing unproven drugs. Dexamethasone has likely saved ½-2 million lives, and was cost effective across a range of countries and populations, whereas the cost effectiveness of remdesivir is uncertain. Published economic and health system impacts of COVID-19 treatments were infrequent. Q2. Issues with adaptive trial designs. Of the 77 platform trials registered, 6 major platform trials, with approximately 50 treatment arms, recruited ~135,000 participants with funding over $100 million. Q3. Models of good practice. Streamlined set-up processes such as flexible and fast-track funding, ethics, and governance approvals are vital. To facilitate recruitment, simple and streamlined research processes, and pre-existing research networks to coordinate trial planning, design, conduct and practice change are crucial to success. Q4. Potential conflicts to avoid? When treating patients through trials, balancing individual and collective rights and allocating scarce resources between healthcare and research are challenging. Tensions occur between commercial and non-commercial sectors, and academic and public health interests, such as publication and funding driven indicators and the public good.

Conclusion

There is a need to (i) reduce small, repetitive, single centre trials, (ii) increase coordination to ensure robust research conducted for treatments, and (iii) a wider adoption of adaptive/platform trial designs to respond to fast-evolving evidence landscape.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis and Impact on Length of Hospital Stay of the Introduction of Remdesivir as a Treatment Option for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Requiring Supplemental Oxygen in Greece Versus Standard of Care

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global threat with a devastating impact on health, economy, and society in general. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical and economic value of remdesivir by developing a cost-effectiveness analysis model for hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen in Greece.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was developed that included a decision tree model and a Markov cohort model. Clinical effectiveness data for remdesivir were derived from a network meta-analysis. Health care resource use, current clinical practice, and cost data were derived from published literature. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed from a Greek health care payer perspective.

FINDINGS

Treatment with remdesivir led to 1.45 more life-years and 1.11 quality-adjusted life-years gained compared with standard of care alone. In addition, treatment with remdesivir resulted in fewer days in the hospital per patient (0.87, 1.49, and 1.37 fewer days in the general ward, intensive care unit, and intensive care unit with mechanical invasive ventilation, respectively) than patients treated only with standard of care, as well as with lower hospital bed occupancy rates and fewer deaths. Treatment with remdesivir was also related to cost savings for the Greek health care system, making remdesivir a dominant intervention.

IMPLICATIONS

This study provides good evidence for policymakers on the economic value of remdesivir as a treatment strategy for hospitalized patients moderately and severely infected by the virus who require supplemental oxygen. The results support the use of remdesivir as a first-line antiviral treatment option for hospitalized patients in the Greek national COVID-19 treatment algorithm. However, the model does not incorporate estimates on possible additional hospitalizations or rehabilitations, long-term adverse effects of COVID-19, adverse events of remdesivir, or indirect costs of the disease. Therefore, further research is needed to fully evaluate the cost-effectiveness and clinical implications of the use of remdesivir in treating patients with COVID-19 in Greece.

Remdesivir: A Review in COVID-19

Remdesivir (Veklury®), a nucleotide analogue prodrug with broad-spectrum antiviral activity, is approved for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Unlike some antivirals, remdesivir has a low potential for drug-drug interactions. In the pivotal ACTT-1 trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, daily intravenous infusions of remdesivir significantly reduced time to recovery relative to placebo. Subsequent trials provided additional support for the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19, with a greater benefit seen in patients with minimal oxygen requirements at baseline. Clinical trials also demonstrated the efficacy of remdesivir in other patient populations, including outpatients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, as well as hospitalized paediatric patients. In terms of mortality, results were equivocal. However, remdesivir appeared to have a small mortality benefit in hospitalized patients who were not already being ventilated at baseline. Remdesivir was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, but pharmacovigilance data found an increased risk of hepatic, renal and cardiovascular adverse drug reactions in the real-world setting. In conclusion, remdesivir represents a useful treatment option for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require supplemental oxygen.

Dicoumarol is an effective post-exposure prophylactic for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection in human airway epithelium

Repurposing existing drugs to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection in airway epithelial cells (AECs) is a quick way to find novel treatments for COVID-19. Computational screening has found dicoumarol (DCM), a natural anticoagulant, to be a potential SARS-CoV-2 inhibitor, but its inhibitory effects and possible working mechanisms remain unknown. Using air-liquid interface culture of primary human AECs, we demonstrated that DCM has potent antiviral activity against the infection of multiple Omicron variants (including BA.1, BQ.1 and XBB.1). Time-of-addition and drug withdrawal assays revealed that early treatment (continuously incubated after viral absorption) of DCM could markedly inhibit Omicron replication in AECs, but DCM did not affect the absorption, exocytosis and spread of viruses or directly eliminate viruses. Mechanistically, we performed single-cell sequencing analysis (a database of 77,969 cells from different airway locations from 10 healthy volunteers) and immunofluorescence staining, and showed that the expression of NAD(P)H quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1), one of the known DCM targets, was predominantly localised in ciliated AECs. We further found that the NQO1 expression level was positively correlated with both the disease severity of COVID-19 patients and virus copy levels in cultured AECs. In addition, DCM treatment downregulated NQO1 expression and disrupted signalling pathways associated with SARS-CoV-2 disease outcomes (e.g., Endocytosis and COVID-19 signalling pathways) in cultured AECs. Collectively, we demonstrated that DCM is an effective post-exposure prophylactic for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the human AECs, and these findings could help physicians formulate novel treatment strategies for COVID-19.

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.

Economic evaluation of strategies against coronavirus: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 outbreak was defined as a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization. After that, COVID-19 has enormously influenced health systems around the world, and it has claimed more than 4.2 million deaths until July 2021. The pandemic has led to global health, social and economic costs. This situation has prompted a crucial search for beneficial interventions and treatments, but little is known about their monetary value. This study is aimed at systematically reviewing the articles conducted on the economic evaluation of preventive, control and treatment strategies against COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from December 2019 to October 2021 to find applicable literature to the economic evaluation of strategies against COVID-19. Two researchers screened potentially eligible titles and abstracts. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to quality assessment of studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included in this review, and the average CHEERS score was 72. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most common type of economic evaluation, used in 21 studies. And the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was the main outcome applied to measure the effectiveness of interventions, which was used in 19 studies. In addition, articles were reported a wide range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the lowest cost per QALY ($321.14) was related to the use of vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this systematic review, it seems that all strategies are likely to be more cost-effective against COVID-19 than no intervention and vaccination was the most cost-effective strategy. This research provides insight for decision makers in choosing optimal interventions against the next waves of the current pandemic and possible future pandemics.

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

BACKGROUND

Australia implemented an mRNA-based booster vaccination strategy against the COVID-19 Omicron variant in November 2021. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the booster strategy over 180 days.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic Markov model of COVID-19 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy (administered 3 months after 2nd dose) in those aged ≥ 16 years, from a healthcare system perspective. The willingness-to-pay threshold was chosen as A$ 50,000.

RESULTS

Compared with 2-doses of COVID-19 vaccines without a booster, Australia's booster strategy would incur an additional cost of A$0.88 billion but save A$1.28 billion in direct medical cost and gain 670 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in 180 days of its implementation. This suggested the booster strategy is cost-saving, corresponding to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.45 and a net monetary benefit of A$0.43 billion. The strategy would prevent 1.32 million new infections, 65,170 hospitalisations, 6,927 ICU admissions and 1,348 deaths from COVID-19 in 180 days. Further, a universal booster strategy of having all individuals vaccinated with the booster shot immediately once their eligibility is met would have resulted in a gain of 1,599 QALYs, a net monetary benefit of A$1.46 billion and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.95 in 180 days.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 booster strategy implemented in Australia is likely to be effective and cost-effective for the Omicron epidemic. Universal booster vaccination would have further improved its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

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.

Treatment of severe COVID-19: an evolving paradigm

INTRODUCTION

The pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 is due, in part, to dysregulation of the human immune system in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Immune cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 can trigger a hyperinflammatory response of both the adaptive and innate immune system that has been associated with severe disease, hospitalization, and death, and better treatment options are urgently needed.

AREAS COVERED

A mainstay of therapy for COVID-19 involves an antiviral agent, remdesivir, in combination with a systemic corticosteroid, dexamethasone.

EXPERT OPINION

The addition of a second immunomodulator, such as an interleukin-6 inhibitor or a Janus kinase inhibitor, has been associated with clinical benefit in a subset of patients with moderate-to-severe disease, but their use remains controversial. This manuscript reviews what is known about the approach to treatment of severe COVID-19 and examines how immunomodulators such as infliximab and abatacept may alter clinical management and COVID-19 research in the years ahead based on the results of randomized, controlled trials.

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.