Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir for high-risk, community-based adults with COVID-19: an economic evaluation of the 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 6 months. DESIGN AND SETTING: An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-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 = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Real world evidence for public health decision-making on vaccination policies: perspectives from an expert roundtable.

INTRODUCTION: Influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality, but influenza vaccine uptake remains below most countries' targets. Vaccine policy recommendations vary, as do procedures for reviewing and appraising the evidence. AREAS COVERED: During a series of roundtable discussions, we reviewed procedures and methodologies used by health ministries in four European countries to inform vaccine recommendations. We review the type of evidence currently recommended by each health ministry and the range of approaches toward considering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies when setting influenza vaccine recommendations. EXPERT OPINION: Influenza vaccine recommendations should be based on data from both RCTs and RWE studies of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety. Such data should be considered alongside health-economic, cost-effectiveness, and budgetary factors. Although RCT data are more robust and less prone to bias, well-designed RWE studies permit timely evaluation of vaccine benefits, effectiveness comparisons over multiple seasons in large populations, and detection of rare adverse events, under real-world conditions. Given the variability of vaccine effectiveness due to influenza virus mutations and increasing diversification of influenza vaccines, we argue that consideration of both RWE and RCT evidence is the best approach to more nuanced and timely updates of influenza vaccine recommendations.

Association between inactivated influenza vaccine and primary care consultations for autoimmune rheumatic disease flares: a self-controlled case series study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

ObjectivesTo examine the association between inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) administration and primary care consultation for joint pain, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flare, corticosteroid prescription, vasculitis and unexplained fever in people with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). METHODS: We undertook within-person comparisons using self-controlled case-series methodology. AIRD cases who received the IIV and had an outcome of interest in the same influenza cycle were ascertained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The influenza cycle was partitioned into exposure periods (1-14 days prevaccination and 0-14, 15-30, 31-60 and 61-90 days postvaccination), with the remaining time-period classified as non-exposed. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% CI for different outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: Data for 14 928 AIRD cases (69% women, 80% with RA) were included. There was no evidence for association between vaccination and primary care consultation for RA flare, corticosteroid prescription, fever or vasculitis. On the contrary, vaccination associated with reduced primary care consultation for joint pain in the subsequent 90 days (IRR 0.91 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.94)). CONCLUSION: This study found no evidence for a significant association between vaccination and primary care consultation for most surrogates of increased disease activity or vaccine adverse-effects in people with AIRDs. It adds to the accumulating evidence to support influenza vaccination in AIRDs.

Antiviral treatment for outpatient use during an influenza pandemic: a decision tree model of outcomes averted and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Many countries have acquired antiviral stockpiles for pandemic influenza mitigation and a significant part of the stockpile may be focussed towards community-based treatment. METHODS: We developed a spreadsheet-based, decision tree model to assess outcomes averted and cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment for outpatient use from the perspective of the healthcare payer in the UK. We defined five pandemic scenarios-one based on the 2009 A(H1N1) pandemic and four hypothetical scenarios varying in measures of transmissibility and severity. RESULTS: Community-based antiviral treatment was estimated to avert 14-23% of hospitalizations in an overall population of 62.28 million. Higher proportions of averted outcomes were seen in patients with high-risk conditions, when compared to non-high-risk patients. We found that antiviral treatment was cost-saving across pandemic scenarios for high-risk population groups, and cost-saving for the overall population in higher severity influenza pandemics. Antiviral effectiveness had the greatest influence on both the number of hospitalizations averted and on cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that across pandemic scenarios, antiviral treatment can be cost-saving for population groups at high risk of influenza-related complications.

Effects of seasonal and pandemic influenza on health-related quality of life, work and school absence in England: Results from the Flu Watch cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work/school absences for influenza are typically based on medically attended cases or those meeting influenza-like-illness (ILI) case definitions and thus biased towards severe disease. Although community influenza cases are more common, estimates of their effects on HRQoL and absences are limited. OBJECTIVES: To measure quality-adjusted life days and years (QALDs and QALYs) lost and work/school absences among community cases of acute respiratory infections (ARI), ILI and influenza A and B and to estimate community burden of QALY loss and absences from influenza. PATIENTS/METHODS: Flu Watch was a community cohort in England from 2006 to 2011. Participants were followed up weekly. During respiratory illness, they prospectively recorded daily symptoms, work/school absences and EQ-5D-3L data and submitted nasal swabs for RT-PCR influenza testing. RESULTS: Average QALD lost was 0.26, 0.93, 1.61 and 1.84 for ARI, ILI, H1N1pdm09 and influenza B cases, respectively. 40% of influenza A cases and 24% of influenza B cases took time off work/school with an average duration of 3.6 and 2.4 days, respectively. In England, community influenza cases lost 24 300 QALYs in 2010/11 and had an estimated 2.9 million absences per season based on data from 2006/07 to 2009/10. CONCLUSIONS: Our QALDs and QALYs lost and work and school absence estimates are lower than previous estimates because we focus on community cases, most of which are mild, may not meet ILI definitions and do not result in healthcare consultations. Nevertheless, they contribute a substantial loss of HRQoL on a population level.

Evidence synthesis and decision modelling to support complex decisions: stockpiling neuraminidase inhibitors for pandemic influenza usage.

Objectives: The stockpiling of neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) antivirals as a defence against pandemic influenza is a significant public health policy decision that must be made despite a lack of conclusive evidence from randomised controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of NAIs on important clinical end points such as mortality. The objective of this study was to determine whether NAIs should be stockpiled for treatment of pandemic influenza on the basis of current evidence. Methods: A decision model for stockpiling was designed. Data on previous pandemic influenza epidemiology was combined with data on the effectiveness of NAIs in reducing mortality obtained from a recent individual participant meta-analysis using observational data. Evidence synthesis techniques and a bias modelling method for observational data were used to incorporate the evidence into the model. The stockpiling decision was modelled for adults (≥16 years old) and the United Kingdom was used as an example. The main outcome was the expected net benefits of stockpiling in monetary terms. Health benefits were estimated from deaths averted through stockpiling. Results: After adjusting for biases in the estimated effectiveness of NAIs, the expected net benefit of stockpiling in the baseline analysis was £444 million, assuming a willingness to pay of £20,000/QALY ($31,000/QALY). The decision would therefore be to stockpile NAIs. There was a greater probability that the stockpile would not be utilised than utilised. However, the rare but catastrophic losses from a severe pandemic justified the decision to stockpile. Conclusions: Taking into account the available epidemiological data and evidence of effectiveness of NAIs in reducing mortality, including potential biases, a decision maker should stockpile anti-influenza medication in keeping with the postulated decision rule.

Development of processes allowing near real-time refinement and validation of triage tools during the early stage of an outbreak in readiness for surge: the FLU-CATs Study.

BACKGROUND: During pandemics of novel influenza and outbreaks of emerging infections, surge in health-care demand can exceed capacity to provide normal standards of care. In such exceptional circumstances, triage tools may aid decisions in identifying people who are most likely to benefit from higher levels of care. Rapid research during the early phase of an outbreak should allow refinement and validation of triage tools so that in the event of surge a valid tool is available. The overarching study aim is to conduct a prospective near real-time analysis of structured clinical assessments of influenza-like illness (ILI) using primary care electronic health records (EHRs) during a pandemic. This abstract summarises the preparatory work, infrastructure development, user testing and proof-of-concept study. OBJECTIVES: (1) In preparation for conducting rapid research in the early phase of a future outbreak, to develop processes that allow near real-time analysis of general practitioner (GP) assessments of people presenting with ILI, management decisions and patient outcomes. (2) As proof of concept: conduct a pilot study evaluating the performance of the triage tools 'Community Assessment Tools' and 'Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score' to predict hospital admission and death in patients presenting with ILI to GPs during inter-pandemic winter seasons. DESIGN: Prospective near real-time analysis of structured clinical assessments and anonymised linkage to data from EHRs. User experience was evaluated by semistructured interviews with participating GPs. SETTING: Thirty GPs in England, Wales and Scotland, participating in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. PARTICIPANTS: All people presenting with ILI. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study outcome is proof of concept through demonstration of data capture and near real-time analysis. Primary patient outcomes were hospital admission within 24 hours and death (all causes) within 30 days of GP assessment. Secondary patient outcomes included GP decision to prescribe antibiotics and/or influenza-specific antiviral drugs and/or refer to hospital - if admitted, the need for higher levels of care and length of hospital stay. DATA SOURCES: Linked anonymised data from a web-based structured clinical assessment and primary care EHRs. RESULTS: In the 24 months to April 2015, data from 704 adult and 159 child consultations by 30 GPs were captured. GPs referred 11 (1.6%) adults and six (3.8%) children to hospital. There were 13 (1.8%) deaths of adults and two (1.3%) of children. There were too few outcome events to draw any conclusions regarding the performance of the triage tools. GP interviews showed that although there were some difficulties with installation, the web-based data collection tool was quick and easy to use. Some GPs felt that a minimal monetary incentive would promote participation. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed processes that allow capture and near real-time automated analysis of GP's clinical assessments and management decisions of people presenting with ILI. FUTURE WORK: We will develop processes to include other EHR systems, attempt linkage to data on influenza surveillance and maintain processes in readiness for a future outbreak. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as ISRCTN87130712 and UK Clinical Research Network 12827. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. MGS is supported by the UK NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections.

An evaluation of community assessment tools (CATs) in predicting use of clinical interventions and severe outcomes during the A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic.

During severe influenza pandemics healthcare demand can exceed clinical capacity to provide normal standards of care. Community Assessment Tools (CATs) could provide a framework for triage decisions for hospital referral and admission. CATs have been developed based on evidence that supports the recognition of severe influenza and pneumonia in the community (including resource limited settings) for adults, children and infants, and serious feverish illness in children. CATs use six objective criteria and one subjective criterion, any one or more of which should prompt urgent referral and admission to hospital. A retrospective evaluation of the ability of CATs to predict use of hospital-based interventions and patient outcomes in a pandemic was made using the first recorded routine clinical assessment on or shortly after admission from 1520 unselected patients (800 female, 480 children <16 years) admitted with PCR confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 infection (the FLU-CIN cohort). Outcome measures included: any use of supplemental oxygen; mechanical ventilation; intravenous antibiotics; length of stay; intensive or high dependency care; death; and "severe outcome" (combined: use of intensive or high dependency care or death during admission). Unadjusted and multivariable analyses were conducted for children (age <16 years) and adults. Each CATs criterion independently identified both use of clinical interventions that would in normal circumstances only be provided in hospital and patient outcome measures. "Peripheral oxygen saturation ≤ 92% breathing air, or being on oxygen" performed well in predicting use of resources and outcomes for both adults and children; supporting routine measurement of peripheral oxygen saturation when assessing severity of disease. In multivariable analyses the single subjective criterion in CATs "other cause for clinical concern" independently predicted death in children and in adults predicted length of stay, mechanical ventilation and "severe outcome"; supporting the role of clinical acumen as an important independent predictor of serious illness.

Intervention strategies for emerging respiratory virus infections: policy and public health considerations.

Respiratory viruses have emerged and re-emerged in humans for hundreds of years. In the recent past avian and animal influenza viruses have caused human disease ranging from conjunctivitis to respiratory illnesses, including the 2009-10 A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic. Coronaviruses, human metapneumovirus (hMPV) and enteroviruses have also impacted humans globally. Since the likely public health impacts are common, plans and policies for intervention strategies can be developed, encompassing early detection through surveillance and diagnostics, as well as treatment and prevention through clinical and non-clinical interventions. The global comprehensiveness of these varies according to differing resources, competing health priorities and the causative agent, yet, irrespective of this, activities must be proportional to the threat. Pandemics and severe epidemics enable policies to be tested and gaps identified.

Global assessment of resistance to neuraminidase inhibitors, 2008-2011: the Influenza Resistance Information Study (IRIS).

BACKGROUND: Following emergence of naturally occurring oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1N1) viruses, a global observational investigation, the Influenza Resistance Information Study (IRIS; NCT00884117), was initiated in 2008 to study neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) resistance and clinical outcome. METHODS: Patients with influenza-like illness and/or positive rapid test results agreed to swabs of the posterior nares that were assessed by semiquantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) for influenza type and subtype and NAI resistance. RT-qPCR-positive specimens were cultured, sequenced, and phenotypically tested for NAI resistance. Treatment was at the physician's discretion. RESULTS: Of 1799 influenza-positive (RT-qPCR) patients, 1281 had influenza A (47 seasonal H1N1; 335 H3N2; 899 H1N1pdm2009) and 518 had influenza B. Antivirals were administered to 1041 (58%) patients (26, 245, 514, and 256, respectively). All seasonal H1N1 strains were genotypically (H275Y) and phenotypically resistant to oseltamivir. No genotypic resistance was detected in the day 1 samples of any other viral subtypes. Mutation-specific (MS) RT-PCR detected resistance to oseltamivir in 19 patients postbaseline (17 H1N1pdm2009 [H275Y]; 2 H3N2 [R292K]), 14 of whom were children aged ≤5 years. In 12 of 19 patients, viral loads were too low to permit cell culture and 14 of 19 were RT-qPCR negative by day 10. In 1 other H1N1pdm2009 patient, H275Y was detected by sequencing but not by MS RT-PCR. No emergent resistance was found in influenza B infections. CONCLUSIONS: In years 1-3 of IRIS, emergent resistance to oseltamivir in influenza viruses during treatment was uncommon (2.2%) and mostly found in patients aged 1-5 years. Viral loads were low in many cases and viral clearance rapid.

Bacterial pneumonia and pandemic influenza planning.

Pandemic influenza planning is well under way across the globe. Antiviral drugs and vaccines have dominated the therapeutic agenda. Far less work has been conducted on stockpiling and planning for deployment of antimicrobial drugs against secondary bacterial pneumonia, a cause of substantial illness and death in previous pandemics and epidemics. In the event of a pandemic, effective antimicrobial drug measures are expected to substantially benefit public health. We address issues regarding use of antimicrobial drugs as stocks of individual agents are diminished and the role of resistance surveillance in informing such policy. Furthermore, vaccination with polysaccharide and conjugate pneumococcal vaccines is considered as part of a pandemic strategy. Most illness and death from influenza are likely to occur in developing countries, where neuraminidase inhibitors and vaccines may be neither affordable nor available; thus, compared with industrialized countries, the benefits of treating bacterial complications in developing countries may be substantially greater.

Logistic issues and potential prescribing costs associated with use of neuraminidase inhibitors for the treatment of influenza in primary care.

In the UK, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has recommended the use of neuraminidase inhibitors for elderly and at-risk patients who present with influenza-like illness within 36 hours of symptom onset. However, few data exist to enable primary care trusts to evaluate the logistics and costs of prescribing. We sought to determine, during a confirmed influenza outbreak, the proportion of eligible patients who currently present in time to benefit from treatment with a neuraminidase inhibitor, and to develop the findings into a model for evaluating potential prescribing costs. Within a single primary care group, demographic and co-morbidity data were collected on all patients consulting their general practitioner or attending an out-of-hours centre with influenza-like illness during the outbreak period. A typical primary care trust serving 100 000 patients might expect to prescribe a neuraminidase inhibitor to 140 eligible at-risk patients in a season of low influenza activity, rising to 300 in a large epidemic. At-risk patients were more likely than non-at-risk patients to consult within 36 hours of the onset of symptoms. However, only 20% of such patients, rising to 47% in out-of-hours centres, consulted in time to benefit from treatment. The low proportion of elderly and at-risk patients who consult their general practitioner in time to benefit from treatment with a neuraminidase inhibitor emphasizes the overriding importance of annual vaccination in these groups. If the full benefits of neuraminidase inhibitors are to be realized, access to treatment for eligible patients must be improved.