This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Purpose First detected in China in 2019, the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has rapidly spread globally. Since then, healthcare systems are exposed to major challenges due to scarce personnel and financial resources. Therefore, this analysis intended to examine treatment costs of COVID-19 inpatients in a German single centre during the first pandemic wave in 2020 from a healthcare payer perspective. Potential cost savings were assessed considering the administration of remdesivir according to the European Medicines Agency label. Methods A retrospective medical-chart review was conducted on COVID-19 patients treated at University Hospital Cologne, Germany. Patients were clustered according to an eight-category ordinal scale reflecting different levels of supplemental oxygen. Potential cost savings due to the administration of remdesivir were retrospectively modelled based on a reduced length of stay, as shown in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial. Results 105 COVID-19 patients were identified. There was wide variability in the service data with median treatment costs from EUR 900 to EUR 53,000 per patient, depending on major diagnosis categories and clinical severity. No supplemental oxygen was needed in 40 patients (38.1%). Forty-three (41.0%) patients were treated in intensive-care units, and 30 (69.8%) received invasive ventilation. In our model, in-label administration of remdesivir would have resulted in costs savings of EUR 2100 per COVID-19 inpatient (excluding acquisition costs). Conclusion We found that COVID-19 inpatients suffer from heterogeneous disease patterns with a variety of incurred G-DRG tariffs and treatment costs. Theoretically shown in the model, financial resources can be saved by the administration of remdesivir in eligible inpatients.

Objectives Internationally, healthcare systems are confronted by an ever-increasing scarcity of medical resources due to the ongoing novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of remdesivir on the demand of hospital bed capacities for hospitalized COVID-19 patients and to evaluate the potentially created capacities for treating additional COVID-19 patients or elective treatments at the hospital. Methods An epidemiological model was developed that utilized the population of Cologne (Germany) during the first COVID-19 wave (first hospitalized patient—30 September 2020) to compare two scenarios: no administration of remdesivir (A) and the administration of remdesivir according to the EMA label (B). The results of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial were used to evaluate the potential impact of remdesivir on hospital capacity. Results With the first recorded patient on 2 March 2020, a total of 576 COVID-19 hospitalized patients were detected during the first wave in Cologne. Comparing both scenarios (A versus B) of the model, the administration of remdesivir increased the number of discharges from 259 to 293 (+5.8%) and fewer patients needed ICU admission [214 versus 178 (−6.3%)]. In addition, the model estimated 20 fewer deaths (scenario B). Based on a reduced length of stay, 31.4 hospital beds (57.0 versus 25.6) could have been freed by administering remdesivir to eligible patients. This would have allowed either the treatment of an additional 730 COVID-19 patients or 660 elective treatments. Conclusions In our model, remdesivir administration profoundly contributed to free hospital capacities in the metropolitan city Cologne in Germany.

Background In the past decades, highly innovative treatments in the field of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) became available in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the cost–benefit relation of third-line interventions in DLBCL from a German payer perspective. Methods Clinical benefit of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), chimeric antigen receptor T cells therapy (CAR T) [tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel)] and best supportive care (BSC) was assessed in terms of median overall survival (median OS) derived from a systematic literature review in PubMed. Real-world treatment costs were retrieved from the university hospitals Cologne and Hamburg-Eppendorf. The cost–benefit relation was analysed using the efficiency frontier concept. Results Median OS varied from 6.3 months in BSC to 23.5 months in CAR T (axi-cel), while median real-world treatment costs ranged likewise widely from €26,918 in BSC to €340,458 in CAR T (axi-cel). Shown by the efficiency frontier, alloSCT and axi-cel were found as most efficient interventions. Conclusion The efficiency frontier supports the pricing of innovative therapies, such as third-line interventions in DLBCL, in relation to appropriate comparators. Yet, studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to include studies with unreached median OS and to reflect experiences gained with CAR T in clinical practice.

Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) cause serious infections and aggravate disease progression. Last resort antibiotics are effective against MDR-GNB and are reimbursed by flat rates based on German diagnosis-related groups (G-DRG). From a hospital management perspective, this analysis compared hospital reimbursement for last resort antibiotics with their acquisition costs to outline potential funding gaps. Retrospective analyses based on medical charts and real-life reimbursement data included patients with pneumonia due to MDR-GNB treated in intensive care units (ICU) of a German tertiary care hospital (University Hospital Cologne) between January 2017 and December 2020. Drug-associated hospital reimbursement of G-DRG was compared with drug acquisition costs based on preliminarily approved last resort antibiotics (cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam) according to label. Funding gaps were determined for the treatment of Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and mixed infections, respectively. Most of the 31 patients were infected with Enterobacterales (n = 15; 48.4%) and P. aeruginosa (n = 13; 41.9%). Drug-associated G-DRG reimbursement varied from 44.50 EUR (mixed infection of P. aeruginosa and Enterobacterales) to 2265.27 EUR (P. aeruginosa; mixed infection of P. aeruginosa and Enterobacterales). Drug acquisition costs ranged from 3284.40 EUR in ceftazidime-avibactam (minimum duration) to 15,827.01 EUR for imipenem-cilastatin-relebactam (maximum duration). Underfunding was found for all MDR-GNB, reaching from 1019.13 EUR (P. aeruginosa; mixed infection of P. aeruginosa and Enterobacterales) to 14,591.24 EUR (Enterobacterales). This analysis revealed the underfunding of last resort antibiotics in German hospital treatment. Insufficient reimbursement implies less research in this field, leading to a more frequent use of inappropriate antibiotics. The cycle closes as this contributes to the development of multi-drug resistant bacteria.