Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for community-based adults with COVID-19 and increased risk of adverse outcomes in the UK PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over six months. DESIGN AND SETTING: Economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and a six-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.007) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except those aged ≥75 years with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir at the current cost of £513 per course is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a six-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated COVID-19 patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

A scoping review of the reasons for and approaches to non-uptake of pertussis and influenza vaccinations in pregnant women in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Pertussis and influenza cause significant morbidity and mortality in pregnancy and the neonatal period. Maternal vaccination in pregnancy would reduce harm, but low vaccine uptake is a concern. This scoping review aimed to understand the reasons for, and approaches, to non-uptake of pertussis and influenza vaccinations in pregnant women in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: The inclusion criteria of this scoping review consist of pregnant women who avail of pertussis and influenza vaccines in the UK and Ireland. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL databases were searched in June 2021 and updated in October 2022. Searches were limited to English language reports published after 2011. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on scoping reviews. Data were extracted and charted. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the literature. Acceptability, as well as organisational and awareness issues, were overarching themes regarding reasons for and approaches to non-uptake of the vaccines respectively. Other themes included healthcare professional factors, information interpretation and pregnancy-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Women need clear, comprehensible information, ideally provided by their healthcare professionals, in a way that is meaningful and addresses their circumstances and risk perceptions. This research will serve as a base for future work that aims behaviour science interventions at the wider pregnant population as well as the target groups that have been identified in this review.