Dataset Information

A Cost-Effectiveness Framework for COVID-19 Treatments for Hospitalized Patients in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis impacting population health and the economy. We describe a cost-effectiveness framework for evaluating acute treatments for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, considering a broad spectrum of potential treatment profiles and perspectives within the US healthcare system to ensure incorporation of the most relevant clinical parameters, given evidence currently available.

Methods

A lifetime model, with a short-term acute care decision tree followed by a post-discharge three-state Markov cohort model, was developed to estimate the impact of a potential treatment relative to best supportive care (BSC) for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The model included information on costs and resources across inpatient levels of care, use of mechanical ventilation, post-discharge morbidity from ventilation, and lifetime healthcare and societal costs. Published literature informed clinical and treatment inputs, healthcare resource use, unit costs, and utilities. The potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed from US health payer, societal, and fee-for-service (FFS) payment model perspectives.

Results

Viewing results in aggregate, treatments that conferred at least a mortality benefit were likely to be cost-effective, as all deterministic and sensitivity analyses results fell far below willingness-to-pay thresholds using both a US health payer and FFS payment perspective, with and without societal costs included. In the base case, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) ranged from $22,933 from a health payer perspective using bundled payments to $8028 from a societal perspective using a FFS payment model. Even with conservative assumptions on societal impact, inclusion of societal costs consistently produced ICERs 40-60% lower than ICERs for the payer perspective.

Conclusion

Effective COVID-19 treatments for hospitalized patients may not only reduce disease burden but also represent good value for the health system and society. Though data limitations remain, this cost-effectiveness framework expands beyond current models to include societal costs and post-discharge ventilation morbidity effects of potential COVID-19 treatments.

SUBMITTER: Sheinson D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7919620 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTo compare the mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between those that required supplemental oxygen and received dexamethasone with a comparable set of patients who did not receive dexamethasone.MethodsWe utilized the Premier Health Database to identify hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 from July 1, 2020-January 31, 2021. Index date was when patients first initiated oxygen therapy. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality for patients receiving dexamethasone versus those not receiving dexamethasone 1-day pre- to 1-day post-index period. Secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality, time to in-hospital mortality, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, time to discharge, and proportion discharged alive by day 28. Twenty-three models using weighting, matching, stratification, and regression were deployed through the concept of frequentist model average (FMA) to estimate the effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality up to the 28-day hospitalization period.ResultsA total of 1,208,881 patients with COVID-19 were screened; as an inpatient 255,216 used oxygen, and 251,536 were included in the analysis. In the dexamethasone group, odds of in-hospital mortality were higher than those of the comparator (FMA: odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.08, 1.22). Using a best fit model, OR for in-hospital mortality was non-significant for the dexamethasone group compared with the comparator (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92, 1.14). Dexamethasone treatment was associated with poorer outcomes versus the comparator group across the majority of secondary endpoints, except for number of days in hospital, which was lower in the dexamethasone group versus the comparator group (mean difference - 2.14, 95% CI - 2.43, - 1.47).ConclusionsHospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen and received dexamethasone did not have a survival benefit versus similar patients not receiving dexamethasone. The dexamethasone group was not associated with favorable responses for outcomes such as progression to death or mechanical ventilation and time to in-hospital death.

Project description:IntroductionBaricitinib-remdesivir (BARI-REM) combination is superior to remdesivir (REM) in reducing recovery time and accelerating clinical improvement among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), specifically those receiving high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation. Here we assessed the cost-effectiveness of BARI-REM versus REM in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the USA.MethodsA three-state model was developed addressing costs and patient utility associated with COVID-19 hospitalization, immediate post hospital care, and subsequent lifetime medical care. Analysis was performed from the perspective of a payer and a hospital. Both perspectives evaluated two subgroups: all patients and patients who required oxygen. The primary measures of benefit in the model were patient quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued during and after hospitalization, cost per life years gained, cost per death avoided, and cost per use of mechanical ventilation avoided.ResultsIn the base-case payer perspective with a lifetime horizon, treatment with BARI-REM versus REM resulted in an incremental total cost of $7962, a gain of 0.446 life years and gain of 0.3565 QALYs over REM. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of using BARI-REM were estimated as $22,334 per QALY and $17,858 per life year. The base-case and sensitivity analyses showed that the total incremental cost per QALY falls within the reduced willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY applied under health emergencies. In all hospitalized patients, treatment with BARI-REM versus REM reduced total hospital expenditures per patient by $1778 and total reimbursement payments by $1526, resulting in a $252 reduction in net costs per patient; it also resulted in a net gain of 0.0018 QALYs and increased survival of COVID-19 hospitalizations by 2.7%.ConclusionOur study showed that BARI-REM is cost-effective compared to using REM for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The base-case results of this cost-effectiveness model were most sensitive to average annual medical costs for recovered patients.

Project description:PurposeIn the Phase III COV-BARRIER (Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib for the Treatment of Hospitalised Adults With COVID-19) trial, treatment with baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, in addition to standard of care (SOC), was associated with significantly reduced mortality over 28 days in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), with a safety profile similar to that of SOC alone. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib + SOC versus SOC alone (which included systemic corticosteroids and remdesivir) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States.MethodsAn economic model was developed to simulate inpatients' stay, discharge to postacute care, and recovery. Costs modeled included payor costs, hospital costs, and indirect costs. Benefits modeled included life-years (LYs) gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, deaths avoided, and use of mechanical ventilation avoided. The primary analysis was performed from a payor perspective over a lifetime horizon; a secondary analysis was performed from a hospital perspective. The base-case analysis modeled the numeric differences in treatment effectiveness observed in the COV-BARRIER trial. Scenario analyses were also performed in which the clinical benefit of baricitinib was limited to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the trial.FindingsIn the base-case payor perspective model, an incremental total cost of 17,276 US dollars (USD), total QALYs gained of 0.6703, and total LYs gained of 0.837 were found with baricitinib + SOC compared with SOC alone. With the addition of baricitinib, survival was increased by 5.1% and the use of mechanical ventilation was reduced by 1.6%. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 25,774 USD/QALY gained and 20,638 USD/LY gained; a "mortality-only" scenario analysis yielded similar results of 26,862 USD/QALY gained and 21,433 USD/LY gained. From the hospital perspective, combination treatment with baricitinib + SOC was more effective and less costly than was SOC alone in the base case, with an incremental cost of 38,964 USD per death avoided in the mortality-only scenario.ImplicationsIn hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, the addition of baricitinib to SOC was cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated from both the payor and the hospital perspectives. These findings were robust to sensitivity analysis and to conservative assumptions limiting the clinical benefits of baricitinib to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the COV-BARRIER trial.