Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Patients at High Risk for Progression to Severe COVID-19 in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an orally administered antiviral indicated for the outpatient treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression to severe illness. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of NMV/r versus best supportive care for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe illness from a US health sector perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using a short-term decision-tree (1 year) followed by a lifetime 2-state Markov model (alive and dead). The short-term decision-tree captured costs and outcomes associated with the primary infection and healthcare utilization; survivors of the short-term decision-tree were followed until death assuming US quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), adjusted in the short-term for survivors of mechanical ventilation. Baseline rate of hospitalization and NMV/r effectiveness were taken from an Omicron-era US real-world study. Remaining inputs were informed by previous COVID-19 studies and publicly available US sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for all model inputs to test the robustness of model results. RESULTS: NMV/r was found to decrease COVID-19 related hospitalizations (-0.027 per infected case) increase QALYs (+0.030), decrease hospitalization costs (-$1110), and increase total treatment cost (+$271), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $8931/QALY. Results were most sensitive to baseline risk of hospitalization and NMV/r treatment effectiveness parameters. The probabilistic analysis indicated that NMV/r has a >99% probability of being cost-effective at a $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: NMV/r is cost-effective vs best supportive care for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 from a US health sector perspective.

Pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions to improve symptom control, functional exercise capacity and quality of life in interstitial lung disease: an evidence synthesis.

We assessed efficacy and effectiveness of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions in improving symptom control, functional exercise capacity and quality of life (QoL) in people living with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). We summarised evidence from three previous reviews (to June 2014) and conducted an updated search of nine databases and grey literature (2011-2019) (registration: CRD42017065933) for prospective studies of interventions aimed to alleviate symptoms, improve QoL or functional exercise capacity in fibrotic ILD. Data were synthesised through narrative synthesis or meta-analysed as appropriate. Forty-seven studies with 2527 participants were included. From 22 pharmacological studies of 11 different interventions (n=1683), the most tested interventions were bosentan and sildenafil. From 25 nonpharmacological studies, the most tested intervention was for pulmonary rehabilitation/exercise training (PR) (22 studies, n=748). There was an improvement in 6-min walk distance immediately following PR (six studies; n=200, mean difference (MD) (95% CI) 39.9 m (18.2 to 61.5)), but not longer term (3 or 6 months, four studies; n=147, MD 5.3 m (-12.9 to 23.4). Multiple, varied outcome measures were used (e.g. 37 studies assessing dyspnoea used 10 different scales with a lack of reporting of rate of deterioration in outcomes). Evidence gap mapping highlighted the most and least researched symptoms, as dyspnoea and cough, respectively. This evidence synthesis highlights overwhelmingly that the most researched symptom is dyspnoea and the strongest evidence base is for short-term PR. The least researched symptom was cough. Research going forward must focus on prioritising and standardising meaningful outcomes and focussing interventions on neglected symptoms.