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.

Background: Nowadays, the Covid-19 pandemic is one of the most important challenges worldwide, especially in terms of health. The most important strategy to prevent and control the Covid-19 pandemic is mass vaccination. This study aimed at developing a roadmap for the mass vaccination of COVID-19 in Iran. Methods: The current study was conducted using a qualitative approach with a content analysis method. In the first step, the review of literature and documents was carried out by a search in scientific databases. In the next step, the data were amassed via in-depth and semi-structured interviews with experts who were selected purposefully, including policymakers, health care workers, and managers. Then, three multidisciplinary expert panels for roadmap development were held. Results: Based on the literature review, interviews, and three stages of an expert panel, the final roadmap was developed with five dimensions including outcomes, planning and preparation, strategies, preparation and implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. Conclusions: This roadmap was developed to improve mass vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to our findings, it is strongly recommended that the vaccination roadmap with all the above-mentioned features and comprehensive structure should be applied to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In recent years, massively parallel sequencing or next generation sequencing (NGS) has considerably changed both the research and diagnostic fields, and rapid developments have led to the combination of NGS techniques in clinical practice, ease of analysis, and detection of genetic mutations. This article aimed at reviewing the economic evaluation studies of the NGS techniques in the diagnosis of genetic diseases. In this systematic review, scientific databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and CEA registry) were searched from 2005 to 2022 to identify the related literature on the economic evaluation of NGS techniques in the diagnosis of genetic diseases. Full-text reviews and data extraction were all performed by two independent researchers. The quality of all the articles included in this study was evaluated using the Checklist of Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES). Out of 20 521 screened abstracts, 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean score of the QHES checklist for the studies was 0.78 (high quality). Seventeen studies were conducted based on modeling. Costeffectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-minimization analysis were done in 26 studies, 13 studies, and 1 study, respectively. Based on the available evidence and

No abstract

No abstract