Economic evaluation of remdesivir for the treatment of severe COVID-19 patients in China under different scenarios

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.

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.

Remdesivir-related cost-effectiveness and cost and resource use evidence in COVID-19: a systematic review

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a global health emergency since December 2019, leading to millions of deaths worldwide and placing significant pressures, including economic burden, on individual patients and healthcare systems. As of February 2022, remdesivir is the only US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for severe COVID-19. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to summarise economic evaluations, and cost and resource use (CRU) evidence related to remdesivir during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Searches of MEDLINE, Embase the International Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, reference lists, congresses and grey literature were performed in May 2021. Articles were reviewed for relevance against pre-specified criteria by two independent reviewers and study quality was assessed using published checklists.

Results

Eight studies reported resource use and five reported costs related to remdesivir. Over time, the prescription rate of remdesivir increased and time from disease onset to remdesivir initiation decreased. Remdesivir was associated with a 6% to 21.3% decrease in bed occupancy. Cost estimates for remdesivir ranged widely, from $10 to $780 for a 10-day course. In three out of four included economic evaluations, remdesivir treatment scenarios were cost-effective, ranging from ~ 8 to ~ 23% of the willingness-to-pay threshold for the respective country.

Conclusions

Economic evidence relating to remdesivir should be interpreted with consideration of the broader clinical context, including patients’ characteristics and the timing of its administration. Nonetheless, remdesivir remains an important option for physicians in aiming to provide optimal care and relieve pressure on healthcare systems through shifting phases of the pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01930-8.

Incorporating productivity loss in health economic evaluations: a review of guidelines and practices worldwide for research agenda in China

Introduction

Productivity loss may contribute to a large proportion of costs of health conditions in an economic evaluation from a societal perspective, but there is currently a lack of methodological consensus on how productivity loss should be measured and valued. Despite the research progress surrounding this issue in other countries, it has been rarely discussed in China.

Methods

We reviewed the official guidelines on economic evaluations in different countries and regions and screened the literature to summarise the extent to which productivity loss was incorporated in economic evaluations and the underlying methodological challenges.

Results

A total of 48 guidelines from 46 countries/regions were included. Although 32 (67%) guidelines recommend excluding productivity loss in the base case analysis, 23 (48%) guidelines recommend including productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses. Through a review of systematic reviews and the economic evaluation studies included in these reviews, we found that the average probability of incorporating productivity loss in an economic evaluation was 10.2%. Among the economic evaluations (n=478) that explicitly considered productivity loss, most (n=455) considered losses from paid work, while only a few studies (n=23) considered unpaid work losses. Recognising the existing methodological challenges and the specific context of China, we proposed a practical research agenda and a disease list for progress on this topic, including the development of the disease list comprehensively consisting of health conditions where the productivity loss should be incorporated into economic evaluations.

Conclusion

An increasing number of guidelines recommend the inclusion of productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses of economic evaluation. We optimistically expect that more Chinese researchers notice the importance of incorporating productivity loss in economic evaluations and anticipate guidelines that may be suitable for Chinese practitioners and decision-makers that facilitate the advancement of research on productivity loss measurement and valuation.

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.

An Analysis of Life-Year Lost Due to COVID-19 - 34 Countries, December 2019-March 2021

What is already known about this topic?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused severe health consequences. Though most COVID-19 deaths occurred among very old people, their life-year loss might be very large because of their life expectancy at that age.

What is added by this report?

This study quantified how many years of life were lost due to COVID-19 in 34 countries. COVID-19 caused 9 to 21 years of life lost (YLL) per deceased patient. East Asia and Oceania had substantially lower per capita YLL than North America and Europe. Among all countries included, the United States had the greatest total YLL, Peru had the largest YLL per 100,000 people, and Mexico had the largest YLL per 100,000 COVID-19 patients.

What are the implications for public health practice?

The YLL quantification indicated that the vulnerable population, especially the elderly, should be protected under careful public health measures to reduce their YLL. It also implied that it might be too early to lift anti-epidemic restrictions now, since the extreme disproportionate consequences (total and per-capita YLL) in different countries underscored the scrutinization over the variation in disease control strategies to optimize future disease control and prevention.

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

As healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a "living" systematic review approach.

METHODS

Key databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer.

RESULTS

Overall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price.

CONCLUSIONS

Presently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this "living" review.

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

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir, the first novel therapeutic to receive Emergency Use Authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and identify key drivers of value to guide future pricing and reimbursement efforts.

METHODS

A Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from a US healthcare sector perspective. A lifetime time horizon captured potential long-term costs and outcomes. Model outcomes included discounted total costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Remdesivir was modeled as an addition to standard of care and compared with standard of care alone, including dexamethasone for patients requiring respiratory support. COVID-19 hospitalizations were assumed to be reimbursed through a single payment based on the respiratory support received alongside a remdesivir carveout payment in the base case. Sensitivity and scenario analyses identified key drivers.

RESULTS

At a unit price of $520 per vial and assuming no survival benefit with remdesivir, the incremental cost-effectiveness was $298 200/QALY for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and $1 847 000/QALY for patients with mild COVID-19. Although current data do not support a survival benefit, if one was assumed, the cost-effectiveness estimate was $50 100/QALY for the moderate to severe population and $103 400/QALY for the mild population. Another key driver included the hospitalization payment structure (per diem vs bundled payment).

CONCLUSIONS

With the current evidence available, remdesivir's price is too high to align with its expected health gains for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results from this study provide a rationale for iterative health technology assessment.

Economic evaluation of remdesivir for the treatment of severe COVID-19 patients in China under different scenarios

AIMS

The present study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 5-day remdesivir regimen compared with standard of care among severe COVID-19 patients in China, the evidence on which is essential to inform the necessity of securing access to remdesivir.

METHODS

A dynamic transmission model that extended the susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered framework by incorporating asymptomatic, presymptomatic and waiting-to-be-diagnosed patients was constructed to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis from the healthcare system perspective. To estimate epidemic parameters, the model was first calibrated to the observed epidemic curve in Wuhan from 23 January to 19 March 2020. Following the calibration, the infected compartment was replaced by 3 severity-defined health states to reflect differential costs and quality of life associated with disease gravity. Costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) outcomes of 9 million simulated people were accrued across time to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of remdesivir. As robustness checks, an alternative modelling technique using decision tree, additional epidemic scenarios representing different epidemic intensities, and 1-way parameter variations were also analysed.

RESULTS

Remdesivir treatment cost CN¥97.93 million more than standard of care. Also, the net QALY gain from 5-day remdesivir treatment was 6947 QALYs. As such, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CN¥14 098/QALY, substantially lower than the gross domestic product per capita threshold. The peak daily number of severe cases was 19% lower in the remdesivir treatment strategy. Overall, results were robust in alternative scenarios and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Given the cost-effectiveness profile, access to remdesivir for severe COVID-19 patients in China should be considered.

Incorporating future unrelated medical costs in cost-effectiveness analysis in China

The occurrence of future unrelated medical costs is a direct consequence of life-prolonging interventions, but most pharmacoeconomic guidelines recommend the exclusion of these costs. The Chinese guidelines were updated in 2020, taking an exclusion approach for the future unrelated medical cost. We notice the research surrounding this issue continues in other countries and leads to an inclusion recommendation in some guidelines. Meanwhile, this issue has not been discussed in China, reflecting an urgent need for extensive research on its impact. We reviewed the theoretical and practical studies surrounding the inclusion of future unrelated medical costs, summarised the landscape of guidelines in other jurisdictions. We found that the inclusion would increase the internal and external consistency of economic evaluation and the comparability of results between different jurisdictions. However, more research is needed surrounding this issue. We proposed a future research agenda to inform the update of Chinese guidelines. We recommend research on individual-level healthcare reimbursement data and end-of-life costs from hospital administrative data to generate the age-specific, sex-specific and condition-specific costs. We also recommend establishing a formal process to evaluate the ethical and economic impact of including future unrelated medical costs and adjust the threshold accordingly in the guidelines.