Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Molnupiravir Versus Best Supportive Care for the Treatment of Outpatient COVID-19 in Adults in the US.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) imposes a substantial and ongoing burden on the US healthcare system and society. Molnupiravir is a new oral antiviral for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness profile of molnupiravir versus best supportive care in the treatment of adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at risk of progression to severe disease, from a US payer's perspective.

Methods

The model was developed using a decision tree for the short-term acute phase of COVID-19 and a Markov state transition model for the long-term post-acute phase. This model compared molnupiravir with best supportive care as consistent with the MOVe-OUT trial. Costs were reported in 2021 US dollars. Transition probabilities were derived from the phase III MOVe-OUT trial and the TriNetX real-world electronic health records database. Costs were derived from the TriNetX database and utility values from a de novo, vignette-based utility study. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA/PSA) were conducted. Primary outcomes included proportion hospitalized, proportion who died overall and by highest healthcare setting at the end of the acute phase, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained over a lifetime (100 years) horizon, discounted at 3% annually and assessed at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY.

Results

In this model, the use of molnupiravir led to an increase in QALYs (0.210) and decrease in direct total medical costs (-$895) per patient across a lifetime horizon, compared with best supportive care in COVID-19 outpatients. Molnupiravir was the dominant intervention when compared with best supportive care. Patients treated with molnupiravir were less likely to be hospitalized (6.38% vs. 9.20%) and more likely to remain alive (99.88% vs. 98.71%) during the acute phase. Through DSA, molnupiravir treatment effect of hospitalization reduction was identified to be the most influential parameter, and through PSA, molnupiravir remained dominant in 84% of the total simulations and, overall, 100% cost effective.

Conclusion

This analysis suggests that molnupiravir is cost effective compared with best supportive care for the treatment of adult outpatients with COVID-19. However, our study was limited by the unavailability of the most recent information on the rapidly evolving pandemic, including new viral variants, patient populations affected, and changes in standards of care. Further research should explore the impact of vaccination on the cost effectiveness of molnupiravir and other therapies, based on real-world data, to account for these changes, including the impact of vaccination and immunity.

SUBMITTER: Goswami H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9270266 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesSpasticity is an incurable chronic condition, and patients with spasticity frequently experience symptoms such as muscle stiffness, restricted mobility, fatigue, spasms, and pain. The study objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone for the early treatment of adult lower limb spasticity following an acute event (e.g. stroke or traumatic brain injury), from an Australian payer perspective.MethodsUsing clinical data from published pivotal trials, an economic model based on a Markov model was developed to capture changes in treatment costs, healthcare resource use costs, functional outcomes, and health-related quality of life over a lifetime horizon. Scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the uncertainty in the model parameters and assumptions used in the base case.ResultsAbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care was cost-effective versus best supportive care, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $35,721 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of the base case, with most results remaining below the commonly acceptable cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay threshold of $75,000 per quality-adjusted life year for cost-effectiveness in Australia. Inputs and assumptions that produced the top four highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratios include the application of different health resource utilisation source, short time horizon, unweighted regression analyses to determine regression probabilities, and no stopping rule. AbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care has a 74% probability of being cost-effective compared with best supportive care alone at the willingness to pay threshold.ConclusionAbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care treatment is cost-effective in Australia for the management of adult lower limb spasticity in patients treated within 2 years of an acute event.

Project description:BackgroundCost-effectiveness data for cancer treatment are needed from sub-Saharan Africa, where diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a common, curable cancer. In high-income countries, the standard of care for DLBCL is R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) chemoimmunotherapy. Rituximab is often not available in sub-Saharan Africa due to perceived unaffordability, and treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) is common. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment in Malawi, comparing best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP in patients with DLBCL.MethodsFor this cost-effectiveness analysis, we used published Malawi microcosting data, clinical data from a prospective cohort treated with CHOP, and clinical trial data evaluating R-CHOP. We used a decision-tree model to calculate costs per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted from the health system perspective for the treatment of patients with DLBCL with best supportive care, CHOP, or R-CHOP, running the model on a per-patient basis and a Malawi population-level basis. We used the WHO definitions of cost-effective (three times the GDP per capita of the country) and extremely cost-effective (equal to the GDP per capita of the country) as willingness-to-pay thresholds for Malawi.FindingsOn a per-patient level, compared with best supportive care, CHOP was estimated to avert a mean 7·4 DALYs at an incremental cost of US$1384, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $189 per DALY averted, which is substantially lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold (extremely cost-effective). Compared with CHOP, R-CHOP was estimated to avert 2·8 DALYs at an incremental cost of $3324, resulting in an ICER of $1204 per DALY averted, which is slightly higher than the cost-effective willingness-to-pay threshold. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, CHOP remained cost-effective for DLBCL treatment in more than 99% of simulations, whereas R-CHOP was lower than the threshold in 46% of simulations.InterpretationWe estimated CHOP to be cost-effective for DLBCL treatment in Malawi, and that the addition of rituximab might be cost-effective. Despite upfront costs, DLBCL treatment is probably a prudent investment relative to other accepted health interventions in sub-Saharan Africa.FundingNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:The treatment of colorectal cancer is rapidly becoming a significant financial burden to health-care systems within economically developed nations. A current challenge for oncologists and health-care payers is to integrate new, often high-cost, biologic therapies into clinical practice. Inherent to this process is the consideration of cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan with an appropriate comparator from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. This economic evaluation is a trial-based study of cetuximab vs active/best supportive care. Effectiveness estimates for the treatment groups were modelled from key clinical trials. Cunningham et al (2004) compared cetuximab/irinotecan with cetuximab monotherapy; Cunningham et al (1998) compared irinotecan monotherapy in a second-line setting with supportive care. Modelling was necessary owing to an absence of head-to-head clinical trial data of cetuximab/irinotecan vs current standard care. Costs were calculated for the study drugs received, associated administration, palliative chemotherapy for patients in the standard care arm and other nonchemotherapy resources. The discounted life-expectancy of patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan was 0.91 life-years, and 0.47 discounted life-years for patients receiving active/best supportive care. Patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan accumulated mean additional costs of 18 901 pounds per patient relative to the comparator arm, with 11 802 pounds attributable to cetuximab. The incremental cost per life-year gained with cetuximab/irinotecan therapy compared with active/best supportive care was 42 975 pounds . The incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year gained was 57 608 pounds . The incremental cost per life-year gained for cetuximab/irinotecan is relatively high compared with other health-care interventions. However, this result should be considered in the context of a number of factors specific to the treated patient population.