Cost-Effectiveness of Combination of Baricitinib and Remdesivir in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in the United States: A Modelling Study.

INTRODUCTION: Baricitinib-remdesivir (BARI-REM) combination is superior to remdesivir (REM) in reducing recovery time and accelerating clinical improvement among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), specifically those receiving high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation. Here we assessed the cost-effectiveness of BARI-REM versus REM in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the USA. METHODS: A three-state model was developed addressing costs and patient utility associated with COVID-19 hospitalization, immediate post hospital care, and subsequent lifetime medical care. Analysis was performed from the perspective of a payer and a hospital. Both perspectives evaluated two subgroups: all patients and patients who required oxygen. The primary measures of benefit in the model were patient quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued during and after hospitalization, cost per life years gained, cost per death avoided, and cost per use of mechanical ventilation avoided. RESULTS: In the base-case payer perspective with a lifetime horizon, treatment with BARI-REM versus REM resulted in an incremental total cost of $7962, a gain of 0.446 life years and gain of 0.3565 QALYs over REM. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of using BARI-REM were estimated as $22,334 per QALY and $17,858 per life year. The base-case and sensitivity analyses showed that the total incremental cost per QALY falls within the reduced willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY applied under health emergencies. In all hospitalized patients, treatment with BARI-REM versus REM reduced total hospital expenditures per patient by $1778 and total reimbursement payments by $1526, resulting in a $252 reduction in net costs per patient; it also resulted in a net gain of 0.0018 QALYs and increased survival of COVID-19 hospitalizations by 2.7%. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that BARI-REM is cost-effective compared to using REM for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The base-case results of this cost-effectiveness model were most sensitive to average annual medical costs for recovered patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Baricitinib Compared With Standard of Care: A Modeling Study in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in the United States.

PURPOSE: In the Phase III COV-BARRIER (Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib for the Treatment of Hospitalised Adults With COVID-19) trial, treatment with baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, in addition to standard of care (SOC), was associated with significantly reduced mortality over 28 days in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), with a safety profile similar to that of SOC alone. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib + SOC versus SOC alone (which included systemic corticosteroids and remdesivir) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States. METHODS: An economic model was developed to simulate inpatients' stay, discharge to postacute care, and recovery. Costs modeled included payor costs, hospital costs, and indirect costs. Benefits modeled included life-years (LYs) gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, deaths avoided, and use of mechanical ventilation avoided. The primary analysis was performed from a payor perspective over a lifetime horizon; a secondary analysis was performed from a hospital perspective. The base-case analysis modeled the numeric differences in treatment effectiveness observed in the COV-BARRIER trial. Scenario analyses were also performed in which the clinical benefit of baricitinib was limited to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the trial. FINDINGS: In the base-case payor perspective model, an incremental total cost of 17,276 US dollars (USD), total QALYs gained of 0.6703, and total LYs gained of 0.837 were found with baricitinib + SOC compared with SOC alone. With the addition of baricitinib, survival was increased by 5.1% and the use of mechanical ventilation was reduced by 1.6%. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 25,774 USD/QALY gained and 20,638 USD/LY gained; a "mortality-only" scenario analysis yielded similar results of 26,862 USD/QALY gained and 21,433 USD/LY gained. From the hospital perspective, combination treatment with baricitinib + SOC was more effective and less costly than was SOC alone in the base case, with an incremental cost of 38,964 USD per death avoided in the mortality-only scenario. IMPLICATIONS: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, the addition of baricitinib to SOC was cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated from both the payor and the hospital perspectives. These findings were robust to sensitivity analysis and to conservative assumptions limiting the clinical benefits of baricitinib to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the COV-BARRIER trial.

Inpatient Hospital Costs for COVID-19 Patients in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Reliable cost and resource use data for COVID-19 hospitalizations are crucial to better inform local healthcare resource decisions; however, available data are limited and vary significantly. METHODS: COVID-19 hospital admissions data from the Premier Healthcare Database were evaluated to estimate hospital costs, length of stay (LOS), and discharge status. Adult COVID-19 patients (ICD-10-CM: U07.1) hospitalized in the US from April 1 to December 31, 2020, were identified. Analyses were stratified by patient and hospital characteristics, levels of care during hospitalization, and discharge status. Factors associated with changes in costs, LOS, and discharge status were estimated using regression analyses. Monthly trends in costs, LOS, and discharge status were examined. RESULTS: Of the 247,590 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 49% were women, 76% were aged ≥ 50, and 36% were admitted to intensive care units (ICU). Overall median hospital LOS, cost, and cost/day were 6 days, US$11,267, and $1772, respectively; overall median ICU LOS, cost, and cost/day were 5 days, $13,443, and $2902, respectively. Patients requiring mechanical ventilation had the highest hospital and ICU median costs ($47,454 and $41,510) and LOS (16 and 11 days), respectively. Overall, 14% of patients died in hospital and 52% were discharged home. Older age, Black and Caucasian race, hypertension and obesity, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and discharge to long-term care facilities were major drivers of costs, LOS, and risk of death. Admissions in December had significantly lower median hospital and ICU costs and LOS compared to April. CONCLUSION: The burden from COVID-19 in terms of hospital and ICU costs and LOS has been substantial, though significant decreases in cost and LOS and increases in the share of hospital discharges to home were observed from April to December 2020. These estimates will be useful for inputs to economic models, disease burden forecasts, and local healthcare resource planning.

Organ damage in patients treated with belimumab versus standard of care: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The study (206347) compared organ damage progression in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received belimumab in the BLISS long-term extension (LTE) study with propensity score (PS)-matched patients treated with standard of care (SoC) from the Toronto Lupus Cohort (TLC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified 17 known predictors of organ damage to calculate a PS for each patient. Patients from the BLISS LTE and the TLC were PS matched posthoc 1:1 based on their PS (±calliper). The primary endpoint was difference in change in Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) score from baseline to 5 years. RESULTS: For the 5- year analysis, of 567 (BLISS LTE n=195; TLC n=372) patients, 99 from each cohort were 1:1 PS matched. Change in SDI score at Year 5 was significantly lower for patients treated with belimumab compared with SoC (-0.434; 95% CI -0.667 to -0.201; p<0.001). For the time to organ damage progression analysis (≥1 year follow-up), the sample included 965 (BLISS LTE n=259; TLC n=706) patients, of whom 179 from each cohort were PS-matched. Patients receiving belimumab were 61% less likely to progress to a higher SDI score over any given year compared with patients treated with SoC (HR 0.391; 95% CI 0.253 to 0.605; p<0.001). Among the SDI score increases, the proportion of increases ≥2 was greater in the SoC group compared with the belimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: PS-matched patients receiving belimumab had significantly less organ damage progression compared with patients receiving SoC.

Economic outcomes with the conversion of insulin delivery methods in hospitals.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the insulin wastage and associated acquisition costs when switching from individual patient supply (IPS) of 3-mL pens of rapid-acting insulin (RAI) aspart to floor stock (FS) dispensing of 3-mL vials of RAI lispro, and with conversion from IPS of 3-mL pens to centralized unit dose (CUD) of 10-mL vials of basal insulin detemir. METHODS: Data from September 2010 to December 2012 from three hospitals in the Roper St. Francis Healthcare (RSFH) were used: Roper Hospital (368 beds), Bon Secours St. Francis Hospital (204 beds), and Roper St. Francis Mt. Pleasant Hospital (85 beds). Insulin wastage and associated acquisition costs were estimated using regression models. RESULTS: The conversion from IPS of 3-mL pens of insulin aspart to FS of 3-mL vials of lispro was associated with a significant decrease in insulin wastage (204,042 IUs; p < .001) and equated to an average savings of $106.40 per patient at all three hospitals combined (p < .001). For basal insulin, conversion from IPS of 3-mL pens of insulin detemir to CUD of 10-mL vials was associated with a significant decrease in insulin wastage at Roper and St. Francis Hospitals (p < .001). For Mt. Pleasant Hospital, the decrease was not statistically significant. The predicted average reduction in insulin wastage per month was 52,542.9 IUs (p < .001) at all three hospitals combined. CONCLUSIONS: Switching RAI from IPS of 3-mL pens of insulin aspart to one-time unit dose insulin lispro dispensed from FS 3-mL vials as needed significantly reduced insulin wastage and associated acquisition costs at the three combined hospitals. Conversion of basal insulin from IPS of 3-mL pens of insulin detemir to CUD of 10-mL vials of insulin detemir was associated with a significant reduction in insulin wastage and associated acquisition costs at three hospitals combined.