Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Molnupiravir Versus Best Supportive Care for the Treatment of Outpatient COVID-19 in Adults in the US.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) imposes a substantial and ongoing burden on the US healthcare system and society. Molnupiravir is a new oral antiviral for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness profile of molnupiravir versus best supportive care in the treatment of adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at risk of progression to severe disease, from a US payer's perspective. METHODS: The model was developed using a decision tree for the short-term acute phase of COVID-19 and a Markov state transition model for the long-term post-acute phase. This model compared molnupiravir with best supportive care as consistent with the MOVe-OUT trial. Costs were reported in 2021 US dollars. Transition probabilities were derived from the phase III MOVe-OUT trial and the TriNetX real-world electronic health records database. Costs were derived from the TriNetX database and utility values from a de novo, vignette-based utility study. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA/PSA) were conducted. Primary outcomes included proportion hospitalized, proportion who died overall and by highest healthcare setting at the end of the acute phase, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained over a lifetime (100 years) horizon, discounted at 3% annually and assessed at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. RESULTS: In this model, the use of molnupiravir led to an increase in QALYs (0.210) and decrease in direct total medical costs (-$895) per patient across a lifetime horizon, compared with best supportive care in COVID-19 outpatients. Molnupiravir was the dominant intervention when compared with best supportive care. Patients treated with molnupiravir were less likely to be hospitalized (6.38% vs. 9.20%) and more likely to remain alive (99.88% vs. 98.71%) during the acute phase. Through DSA, molnupiravir treatment effect of hospitalization reduction was identified to be the most influential parameter, and through PSA, molnupiravir remained dominant in 84% of the total simulations and, overall, 100% cost effective. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that molnupiravir is cost effective compared with best supportive care for the treatment of adult outpatients with COVID-19. However, our study was limited by the unavailability of the most recent information on the rapidly evolving pandemic, including new viral variants, patient populations affected, and changes in standards of care. Further research should explore the impact of vaccination on the cost effectiveness of molnupiravir and other therapies, based on real-world data, to account for these changes, including the impact of vaccination and immunity.

Comparison of Amitriptyline and US Food and Drug Administration-Approved Treatments for Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia. Objective: To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia. Data Sources: Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated. Results: A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.

Efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus IDegLira in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparison.

AIMS: To estimate the relative treatment effect between the fixed-ratio combinations iGlarLixi and IDegLira (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist with basal insulin) in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials followed by an indirect treatment comparison was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the available fixed-ratio combinations. Main outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change and target achievement [<6.5% and <7.0% (<48 and <53 mmol/mol)], fasting plasma glucose, self-monitored plasma glucose, body weight, and incidence and rate of hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: From 4850 abstracts screened, 78 qualified for full-text article review and two randomized controlled trials were included. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two studies. The mean difference at 26 weeks between IDegLira and iGlarLixi was -0.36 (95% credible intervals -0.58, -0.14) % [-3.9 (-6.3, -1.5) mmol/mol] for HbA1c and -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4) mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose. No significant differences were found in HbA1c target attainment, preprandial or postprandial self-monitored plasma glucose, or body weight change. Formal comparisons of hypoglycaemia were limited by differences in definitions between the studies: in non-sulphonylurea users, incidence was 28% for IDegLira ('confirmed' at ≤3.1 mmol/L); for iGlarLixi, incidence was 9% ('documented symptomatic' at <3.0 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this indirect treatment comparison using two studies suggest iGlarLixi and IDegLira appear to offer similar benefits for HbA1c target achievement. However, the findings suggest differences in other glycaemia results and hypoglycaemia, which may reflect differences in study design and titration approaches.