Cost-effectiveness of Favipiravir in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients in the real-world setting of Saudi arabian pandemic referral hospitals

Alamer, Ahmad; Almutairi, Abdulaali R.; Halloush, Shiraz; Al‐Jedai, Ahmed; Alrashed, Ahmed; AlFaifi, Mashael; Mohzari, Yahya; Almutairi, Malak; AlHassar, Fatimah; Howaidi, Jude; Almutairi, Wedad; Abraham, Ivo; Alkhatib, Nimer S.

doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2023.02.003

Cited by 5 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three types of differentiation were identified, namely: level of respiratory support, level of care management (i.e., ICU versus non-ICU) and symptom levels (mild, moderate, severe). Nine (39.1%) studies grouped on respiratory support [ 22 , 28 – 35 ], six (26.1%) on level of care management [ 25 , 27 , 36 – 39 ], seven (30.4%) on the both respiratory support and level of care management [ 24 , 26 , 40 – 44 ] and one (4.3%) on symptoms [ 45 ]. Four studies did not apply any differentiation during hospitalisation (14.8%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies based their effectiveness estimates on the results of a meta-analysis, including two meta-analyses that used results from RCTs [ 25 , 39 , 45 ]. Two studies based their data on a single cohort study [ 40 , 44 ]. One study included results from another CEA and from two studies based on real-world data as a basis for the effectiveness parameters in the model [ 49 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lessons Learned from Model-based Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Drug Treatments Under Pandemic Circumstances: Results from a Systematic Review

Veijer,

van Hulst,

Friedrichson

et al. 2024

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-024-01375-x.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons Learned from Model-based Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Drug Treatments Under Pandemic Circumstances: Results from a Systematic Review

Veijer,

van Hulst,

Friedrichson

et al. 2024

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A total of 31 studies proceeded to quality assessment, of which 13 were excluded due to the presence of very serious limitations ( Table 4 ). Finally, 18 studies of acceptable quality were included in this two-year update ( Carta and Conversano, 2021 ; Congly et al, 2021 ; Ruggeri et al, 2022a ; Ruggeri et al, 2022b ; Dijk et al, 2022 ; Goswami et al, 2022 ; Kelton et al, 2022 ; Lau et al, 2022 ; Metry et al, 2022 ; Park et al, 2022 ; Rafia et al, 2022 ; Savinkina et al, 2022 ; Yeung et al, 2022 ; Alamer et al, 2023 ; Arwah et al, 2023 ; Kowal et al, 2023 ; Ruggeri et al, 2023 ; Shah et al, 2023 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Included studies evaluated interventions in community or outpatient settings (5/18) ( Goswami et al, 2022 ; Park et al, 2022 ; Savinkina et al, 2022 ; Yeung et al, 2022 ; Ruggeri et al, 2023 ), where patients are at risk of admission to hospital, or an inpatient hospital setting (11/18) ( Carta and Conversano, 2021 ; Congly et al, 2021 ; Ruggeri et al, 2022a ; Ruggeri et al, 2022b ; Dijk et al, 2022 ; Kelton et al, 2022 ; Lau et al, 2022 ; Rafia et al, 2022 ; Alamer et al, 2023 ; Kowal et al, 2023 ; Shah et al, 2023 ); one study included both settings (1/18) ( Metry et al, 2022 ). One study evaluated point-of-care tests in an unspecified health facility (1/18) ( Arwah et al, 2023 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations

Elvidge,

Hopkin,

Narayanan

et al. 2023

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19.Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables.Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation.Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants.Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness of Azvudine for High-risk Outpatients with Mild-to-moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China

Yang,

Wang,

Wang

et al. 2024

Clinical Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-effectiveness of Favipiravir in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients in the real-world setting of Saudi arabian pandemic referral hospitals

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Lessons Learned from Model-based Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Drug Treatments Under Pandemic Circumstances: Results from a Systematic Review

Lessons Learned from Model-based Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Drug Treatments Under Pandemic Circumstances: Results from a Systematic Review

Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations

Cost-effectiveness of Azvudine for High-risk Outpatients with Mild-to-moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About