在具有各种风险因素的瑞典患者中使用 Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir 进行 COVID-19 抗病毒门诊治疗与常规治疗的成本效益对比。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Medical Economics Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-17 DOI:10.1080/13696998.2024.2444836
Fredrik Nilsson, Martina Aldvén, Christian Gerdesköld Rappe, Tendai Mugwagwa
{"title":"在具有各种风险因素的瑞典患者中使用 Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir 进行 COVID-19 抗病毒门诊治疗与常规治疗的成本效益对比。","authors":"Fredrik Nilsson, Martina Aldvén, Christian Gerdesköld Rappe, Tendai Mugwagwa","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2024.2444836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an orally administered antiviral indicated for the outpatient treatment of adult 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 54 patient cohorts, specified according to age, vaccination status and comorbidity burden.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A previously published and validated cost-effectiveness model was utilized and adapted to the Swedish setting. The model used a short-term decision-tree (1 year) followed by a lifetime 2-state Markov model. The short-term decision-tree captured costs and outcomes associated with the primary infection. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome was only considered in terms of quality-of-life decrements for one year. Baseline hospitalization and mortality risks were taken from a Swedish, nationwide, uniquely granular, Omicron-era, real-world study. 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 Swedish sources.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed a large variation ranging from almost nine million SEK for some of the youngest cohorts to being dominant (i.e. cost-saving with higher gains in quality-of-life vs standard of care) for twelve elderly cohorts. In general, higher age in combination with non-recent (>180 days) or no vaccination led to lower ICERs. Specifically, NMV/r was cost-effective for all but one patient cohorts at least 70 years old, and for most patient cohorts 60-69 years old.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>As the COVID-19 landscape changes, symptom burden and baseline risks constantly change. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of NMV/r will change with time. However, the future risks could be related to the risks in the current study, and thus remain useful for decision makers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that NMV/r is a cost-effective or even cost-saving treatment option for many patient cohorts, including most elderly and not-recently vaccinated patients with at least some comorbidity burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":" ","pages":"186-195"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-effectiveness of outpatient COVID-19 antiviral treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus usual care in Swedish patients with various risk factors.\",\"authors\":\"Fredrik Nilsson, Martina Aldvén, Christian Gerdesköld Rappe, Tendai Mugwagwa\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13696998.2024.2444836\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an orally administered antiviral indicated for the outpatient treatment of adult 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 54 patient cohorts, specified according to age, vaccination status and comorbidity burden.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A previously published and validated cost-effectiveness model was utilized and adapted to the Swedish setting. The model used a short-term decision-tree (1 year) followed by a lifetime 2-state Markov model. The short-term decision-tree captured costs and outcomes associated with the primary infection. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome was only considered in terms of quality-of-life decrements for one year. Baseline hospitalization and mortality risks were taken from a Swedish, nationwide, uniquely granular, Omicron-era, real-world study. 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 Swedish sources.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed a large variation ranging from almost nine million SEK for some of the youngest cohorts to being dominant (i.e. cost-saving with higher gains in quality-of-life vs standard of care) for twelve elderly cohorts. In general, higher age in combination with non-recent (>180 days) or no vaccination led to lower ICERs. Specifically, NMV/r was cost-effective for all but one patient cohorts at least 70 years old, and for most patient cohorts 60-69 years old.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>As the COVID-19 landscape changes, symptom burden and baseline risks constantly change. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of NMV/r will change with time. However, the future risks could be related to the risks in the current study, and thus remain useful for decision makers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that NMV/r is a cost-effective or even cost-saving treatment option for many patient cohorts, including most elderly and not-recently vaccinated patients with at least some comorbidity burden.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"186-195\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2444836\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2444836","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r)是一种口服抗病毒药物,适用于轻中度COVID-19成人患者门诊治疗,疾病进展为严重疾病的高风险。我们估计了54个患者队列的NMV/r与最佳支持治疗的成本效益,根据年龄、疫苗接种状况和合并症负担进行了指定。材料和方法:采用了先前发表并经过验证的成本效益模型,并使其适应瑞典的环境。该模型使用了一个短期决策树(1年),然后是一个终身两状态马尔可夫模型。短期决策树捕获了与原发感染相关的成本和结果。急性后COVID-19综合征(PACS)仅以一年的生活质量下降来考虑。基线住院和死亡风险来自瑞典,全国范围内,独特的颗粒,欧米克隆时代,现实世界的研究。NMV/r有效性取自美国欧米克隆时代的一项真实世界研究。其余输入来自以前的COVID-19研究和瑞典公开来源。结果:增量成本-效果比(ICERs)显示了很大的变化,从一些最年轻的队列的近900万瑞典克朗到12个老年队列的主导(即在生活质量和护理标准方面获得更高收益的成本节约)。一般来说,较高的年龄加上非近期(180天以内)或未接种疫苗会导致较低的icer。具体而言,NMV/r对所有年龄≥70岁的患者以及大多数年龄在60-69岁的患者均具有成本效益。局限性:随着COVID-19形势的变化,症状负担和基线风险不断变化。因此,NMV/r的成本效益会随时间变化。然而,未来的风险可能与当前研究中的风险相关,因此对决策者仍然有用。结论:本研究表明,NMV/r对于许多患者队列来说是一种具有成本效益甚至节省成本的治疗选择,包括大多数老年人和最近未接种疫苗的至少有一些合并症负担的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost-effectiveness of outpatient COVID-19 antiviral treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus usual care in Swedish patients with various risk factors.

Aims: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an orally administered antiviral indicated for the outpatient treatment of adult 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 54 patient cohorts, specified according to age, vaccination status and comorbidity burden.

Materials and methods: A previously published and validated cost-effectiveness model was utilized and adapted to the Swedish setting. The model used a short-term decision-tree (1 year) followed by a lifetime 2-state Markov model. The short-term decision-tree captured costs and outcomes associated with the primary infection. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome was only considered in terms of quality-of-life decrements for one year. Baseline hospitalization and mortality risks were taken from a Swedish, nationwide, uniquely granular, Omicron-era, real-world study. 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 Swedish sources.

Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed a large variation ranging from almost nine million SEK for some of the youngest cohorts to being dominant (i.e. cost-saving with higher gains in quality-of-life vs standard of care) for twelve elderly cohorts. In general, higher age in combination with non-recent (>180 days) or no vaccination led to lower ICERs. Specifically, NMV/r was cost-effective for all but one patient cohorts at least 70 years old, and for most patient cohorts 60-69 years old.

Limitations: As the COVID-19 landscape changes, symptom burden and baseline risks constantly change. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of NMV/r will change with time. However, the future risks could be related to the risks in the current study, and thus remain useful for decision makers.

Conclusions: This study shows that NMV/r is a cost-effective or even cost-saving treatment option for many patient cohorts, including most elderly and not-recently vaccinated patients with at least some comorbidity burden.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Economics
Journal of Medical Economics HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication. Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信