Cost of SARS-CoV-2 self-test distribution programmes by different modalities: a micro-costing study in five countries (Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines).

OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic testing is an important tool to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet access to and uptake of testing vary widely 3 years into the pandemic. The WHO recommends the use of COVID-19 self-testing as an option to help expand testing access. We aimed to calculate the cost of providing COVID-19 self-testing across countries and distribution modalities. DESIGN: We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction). SETTING: We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings-namely, workplace and healthcare facilities. RESULTS: Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04-3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58-87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15-50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29-35%) versus off-site self-testing (7-27%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.

Budget Impact Analysis of Utilization of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Philippines.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the financial and economic impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril for the treatment and prevention of hospitalization/rehospitalization because of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: The budget impact analysis was guided by the Philippine Reference Case and ISPOR's Principles of Good Practice for Budget Impact Analysis. A government-funded healthcare payer perspective and a societal perspective were considered. Data collection was guided by the pathways of disease progression and care. Collection of costing data followed a bottom-up approach. The model was based on a Markov model used in a study in Thailand. RESULTS: Over the next 5 years, there will be 17 625 less hospitalizations (∼5.1% less than enalapril arm) and 7968 less cardiovascular-related deaths (∼7.0% less than enalapril arm). In 5 years, the total cost of treating patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan at current market coverage and annual growth conditions is ₱15.430 billion, which is ₱11.077 billion higher than fully treating with enalapril only. The total required additional investment with treatment of sacubitril/valsartan compared with the full enalapril arm are ₱407 million (at 30-day coverage), ₱800 million (at 60-day coverage), and ₱1.181 billion (at 90-day coverage). If hospitalizations costs alone are considered, only the 30-day coverage is cost-saving. If a societal perspective is considered, all options are cost-saving where at least ₱4.003 billion is saved by the economy. CONCLUSION: The initial investment required to treat patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan is high; nevertheless, the year-on-year cost deficit shrinks in favor of investing in sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Rotavirus Vaccination Likely to Be Cost Saving to Society in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Following the introduction of rotavirus immunization in 2006 in the United States, there were substantial declines in the domestic rotavirus disease burden. In this study, we assess the value for money achieved by the program in the decade following vaccine introduction. METHODS: We applied an age-specific, static, multicohort compartmental model to examine the impact and cost-effectiveness of the US rotavirus immunization program in children <5 years of age using healthcare utilization data from 2001 to 2015 inclusive. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from both a healthcare system and societal perspective. RESULTS: Declines in healthcare use associated with the rotavirus and acute gastroenteritis occurred from 2006 and continued to grow before stabilizing from 2010 through 2011. From 2011 to 2015, an estimated annual average of approximately 118 000 hospitalizations, 86 000 emergency department presentations, and 460 000 outpatient and physician office visits were prevented. From a societal perspective during this same period, the program was estimated to be cost saving in the base case model and in >90% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations and from a healthcare system perspective >98% of simulations found an ICER below $100 000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: After the program stabilized, we found the rotavirus immunization in the United States was likely to have been cost saving to society. The greater than expected healthcare and productivity savings reflect the success of the rotavirus immunization program in the United States.

Incidence and outcomes of sepsis in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous residents of New South Wales: population-based cohort study.

Objective: To estimate the incidence and outcomes of sepsis hospitalisations in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous residents of New South Wales. Design and participants: Prospective cohort study of residents aged 45 years and older, recruited between 2006 and 2009, and followed for hospitalisation for sepsis. Main outcome measures: Incidence and hazard ratio (HR) of sepsis hospitalisation and intensive care unit (ICU) admission identified using International Classification of Diseases (10th revision) coding on discharge data. Length of stay, readmission and mortality in those admitted for sepsis. Results: Of 264 678 participants, 1928 (0.7%) identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Sepsis hospitalisation was higher in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants (8.67 v 6.12 per 1000 person-years; age- and sex-adjusted HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.98-2.80) but was attenuated after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, health behaviour and comorbidities (adjusted HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.31-1.86). Among those hospitalised for sepsis, after adjusting for age and sex, there were no differences between the proportions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous participants admitted to an ICU (18.0% v 16.1%; P = 0.42) or deceased at 1 year (36.1% v 36.8%; P = 0.92). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants had shorter lengths of hospital stay (9.98 v 11.72 days; P < 0.001) and ICU stay (4.38 v 6.35 days; P < 0.001) than non-Indigenous participants. Overall, more than 70% of participants were readmitted to hospital within 1 year. Conclusion: We found that the rate of sepsis hospitalisation in NSW was higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults. Culturally appropriate, community-led strategies targeting chronic disease prevention and the social determinants of health may reduce this gap. Preventing readmission following sepsis is a priority for all Australians.