Early Treatment with Fluvoxamine among Patients with COVID-19: A Cost-Consequence Model.

To date, two published randomized trials have indicated a clinical benefit of early treatment with fluvoxamine versus placebo for adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Using the results of the largest of these trials, the TOGETHER trial, we conducted a cost-consequence analysis to assess the health system benefits of preventing progression to severe COVID-19 in outpatient populations in the United States. A decision-analytic model in the form of a decision tree was constructed to evaluate two treatment strategies for high-risk patients with confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 in the primary analysis: treatment with a 10-day course of fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily) and current standard-of-care. A secondary analysis comparing a 5-day course of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was also conducted. We used a time horizon of 28 days. Reported outcomes included cost-savings and hospitalization days avoided. The results of our analysis indicated that administration of fluvoxamine to symptomatic outpatients at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19 was substantially cost-saving, in the amount of $232 per eligible patient and prevented an average of 0.15 hospital days per patient treated, compared with standard of care. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was also shown to be cost-saving despite its higher acquisition cost and provided savings to the healthcare system of $625 per patient treated. These findings suggest that fluvoxamine is likely to be a cost-effective addition to frontline COVID-19 mitigation strategies in many settings, particularly where access to nirmaltrevir-ritonavir or monoclonal antibodies is limited.

Earlier initialization of highly active antiretroviral therapy is associated with long-term survival and is cost-effective: findings from a deterministic model of a 10-year Ugandan cohort.

BACKGROUND: Raising the guidelines for the initiation of antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings at CD4 T-cell counts of 350 cells per microliter raises concerns about feasibility and cost. We examined costs of this shift using data from Uganda for almost 10 years. METHODS: We projected total costs of earlier initiation with combined antiretroviral therapy, including inpatient and outpatient services, antiretroviral treatment and treatment for limited HIV-related opportunistic diseases, and benefits expressed in years-of-life-saved over 5- and 30-year time horizons using a deterministic economic model to examine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed in cost per year-of-life-saved (YLS). RESULTS: The model generated ICERs for 5- and 30-year time horizons. Discounting both costs and benefits at 3% annually, for the 5-year analysis, the ICER was $695/YLS and $769 in the 30-year analysis. The results were most sensitive to program cost and the discount rate applied, but they were less sensitive to opportunistic infection treatment costs or the relative-risk reduction from earlier initiation. Program costs varied from 25% to 125%, and the ICER for the lower bound decreased to $491/YLS at 5-years and $574/YLS at 30 years. For the upper bound, the ICER increased to $899 for 5-years and $964 at 30-years. The budget impact of adoption, assuming the same level of program penetration in the community, is $261,651,942 for 5 years and $872,685,561 for 30 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our model showed that earlier initiation of combined antiretroviral therapy in Uganda is associated with improved long-term survival and is highly cost-effective, as defined by WHO-CHOICE.