Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an economic evaluation as part of the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed. RESULTS: The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation. INTERPRETATION: From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690.

Multiplexed technologies for sexually transmitted infections: global evidence on patient-centered and clinical health outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Conventional care packages around screening for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) entail multiple clinic visits and precipitate losses to follow-up. To prevent these losses, multiplexed technologies for STIs (immunochromatographic tests/devices/assays and molecular assays that can screen multiple pathogens or multiple strains of one STI) can yield same-day results in a single visit. Research evidence of patient-centred (preference, satisfaction) and clinical health outcomes (feasibility, case positivity, uptake, impact) has not been synthesised. We conducted a systematic review to fill this gap. METHODS: For the period 2009-2020, two independent reviewers searched PubMed and Embase, retrieved 4440 citations and abstracted data from 42 relevant studies. RESULTS: Of 42 studies, 10 (23.8%) evaluated multiplexed immunochromatographic and 32 (76.2%) molecular assays. Outcomes were reported as follows: preference (n=3), satisfaction (n=2), uptake (n=1), feasibility (n=2), case positivity (n=42) and impact (n=11). Screened populations included various at-risk groups. A majority (86.1%-92.4%) of participants preferred (60.2%-97.2%) multiplexed technologies (over conventional testing). Compared with conventional lab-based testing, test uptake improved by 99.4% (hepatitis C), 99.6% (Trichomonas vaginalis), 78.6% (hepatitis B) and 42.0% (HIV). Varying case positivities were documented depending on populations screened: HIV (1.8%-29.3%), hepatitis B (1.1%-23.9%), hepatitis C (0.5%-42.2%), Chlamydia trachomatis (2.8%-30.2%), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (0.0%-30.3%) and T. vaginalis (0.0%-32.7%). Regarding impact, 70.0%-100.0% of screened participants were linked to care, with result turnaround times ranging from 14 min (immunochromatographic assays) to 300 min (molecular assays). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional lab-based testing, rapid multiplexed technologies were preferred by testees and led to quicker turnaround times for many STIs yielding same-day results thereby allowing to initiate rapid linkages to care. They were further shown to be highly feasible and impactful for detection and treatment facilitation. Based on these promising results, multiplexed technologies offer potential to screen at-risk populations to reduce onward STI transmission worldwide.