Time to resolution of respiratory and systemic coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms in community setting

Cost-effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in COVID-19 patient groups at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is indicated for the treatment of COVID-19 in symptomatic adults with increased risk for severe illness, not requiring supplemental oxygen yet. From a Dutch societal perspective, a cost-utility assessment of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus best supportive care (BSC) was conducted in three patient groups: (a) immunocompromised patients, (b) patients aged at least 60 years with one comorbidity, (c) patients aged at least 70 years. Groups were selected considering their relevance as high-risk groups, as described in Dutch and international guidelines and recommendations.

METHODS

A one-year decision-tree, estimating costs and outcomes associated with a COVID-19 infection was coupled to a lifetime two-state Markov component simulating subsequent life-time survival and quality of life. Effectiveness estimates, informing the intervention preventing hospital admission or death, were based on real-world evidence by Lewnard and colleagues (2023) in a vaccinated population during a timeframe with predominance of the Omicron variant. Epidemiology relies on publicly available data, primarily sourced during the Omicron variant's era. In the decision tree, clinically relevant event-related disutilities per disease course were applied to adjusted age-dependent Dutch-specific utility levels. In the Markov component, a disutility was considered for post-ICU patients. Costs rely on Dutch pharmacoeconomic guidelines and public data sources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was analysed as the main outcome, with a positive ICER indicating the cost associated with each additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by adopting the intervention.

RESULTS

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with an ICER of € 395 in the immunocompromised group (per patient: + 0.125 QALYs gained; + 0.130 life-years [LYs] gained; € 49 incremental cost), with an ICER of € 8700 in 60-plus patients with comorbidity (+ 0.054 QALYs; + 0.055 LYs; € 474 incremental cost), and with an ICER of € 13,021 among 70-plus patients (+ 0.053 QALYs; + 0.045 LYs; € 689 incremental cost). Results were most sensitive to the baseline hospitalization rates among high-risk individuals. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicate a high probability of being cost-effective (100, 94, 85% respectively), considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of € 20,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

From a Dutch societal perspective, over a lifetime horizon, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is cost-effective versus BSC in the three groups analysed.

Remote Patient Monitoring at Home in Patients With COVID-19: Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

During the pandemic, health care providers implemented remote patient monitoring (RPM) for patients experiencing COVID-19. RPM is an interaction between health care professionals and patients who are in different locations, in which certain patient functioning parameters are assessed and followed up for a certain duration of time. The implementation of RPM in these patients aimed to reduce the strain on hospitals and primary care.

OBJECTIVE

With this literature review, we aim to describe the characteristics of RPM interventions, report on patients with COVID-19 receiving RPM, and provide an overview of outcome variables such as length of stay (LOS), hospital readmission, and mortality.

METHODS

A combination of different searches in several database types (traditional databases, trial registers, daily [Google] searches, and daily PubMed alerts) was run daily from March 2020 to December 2021. A search update for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in April 2022.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded more than 4448 articles (not including daily searches). After deduplication and assessment for eligibility, 241 articles were retained describing 164 telemonitoring studies from 160 centers. None of the 164 studies covering 248,431 patients reported on the presence of a randomized control group. Studies described a "prehosp" group (96 studies) with patients who had a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis and who were not hospitalized but closely monitored at home or a "posthosp" group (32 studies) with patients who were monitored at home after hospitalization for COVID-19. Moreover, 34 studies described both groups, and in 2 studies, the description was unclear. In the prehosp and posthosp groups, there were large variations in the number of emergency department (ED) visits (0%-36% and 0%-16%, respectively) and no convincing evidence that RPM leads to less or more ED visits or hospital readmissions (0%-30% and 0%-22%, respectively). Mortality was generally low, and there was weak to no evidence that RPM is associated with lower mortality. Moreover, there was no evidence that RPM shortens previous LOS. A literature update identified 3 small-scale RCTs, which could not demonstrate statistically significant differences in these outcomes. Most papers claimed savings; however, the scientific base for these claims was doubtful. The overall patient experiences with RPM were positive, as patients felt more reassured, although many patients declined RPM for several reasons (eg, technological embarrassment, digital literacy).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these results, there is no convincing evidence that RPM in COVID-19 patients avoids ED visits or hospital readmissions and shortens LOS or reduces mortality. On the other hand, there is no evidence that RPM has adverse outcomes. Further research should focus on developing, implementing, and evaluating an RPM framework.

Buccopharyngeal route administered high polyphenolic olive oil and COVID-19: A pilot clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Waning immunity after vaccination justifies the need for additional effective COVID-19 treatments. Immunomodulation of local immune response at the oropharyngeal mucosa could hypothetically activate mucosal immunity, which can prevent SARS-CoV-2 main immune evasion mechanisms in early stages of the disease and send an effective warning to other components of immune system. Olive polyphenols are biologically active compounds with immunomodulatory activity. There are previous studies based on immunomodulation with olive polyphenols and respiratory infections using an enteral route, which point to potential effects on time to resolution of symptoms. The investigators sought to determine whether participants following immunomodulation with tiny quantities of high polyphenolic olive oil administered through an oromucosal route could have a better outcome in COVID-19.

SUMMARY

This pilot clinical trial investigated the effect of buccopharyngeal administered high polyphenolic olive oil on COVID-19 incidence, duration, and severity.

IMPORTANCE

Waning immunity after vaccination justifies the need of further research for additional effective treatments for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

Immunomodulation of local immune response at the buccopharyngeal mucosa could hypothetically activate mucosal immunity, which would in turn difficult SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion mechanisms in early stages of the disease and send an effective warning to other components of immune system. Olive polyphenols are biologically active compounds with immunomodulatory activity. There are previous studies based on immunomodulation with olive polyphenols and respiratory infections, using an enteral route, which suggest potential shortening of time to resolution of symptoms. The investigators sought to determine whether participants following immunomodulation with tiny quantities of high polyphenolic olive oil administered through an oromucosal route could have a better outcome in COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Double blind, randomized pilot clinical trial conducted at a single site, Talavera de la Reina, Spain. Potential study participants were identified by simple random sampling from the epidemiological database of contact patients recently diagnosed of COVID-19 during the study period. A total of 88 adult participants were enrolled and 84 completed the 3-month study, conducted between July 1, 2021 and August 31, 2022.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomized to receive oromucosal administered high polyphenolic olive oil, 2 mL twice a day for 3 months or no treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were incidence, duration, and severity of COVID-19 after intervention.

RESULTS

There were no differences in incidence between both groups but there were significant differences in duration, the median time to resolution of symptoms was 3 days in the high polyphenolic olive oil group compared with 7 days in the no-treatment group. Although time to resolution is directly related to severity, this study did not find any differences in severity.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Among full-vaccinated adults recent infected with COVID-19, a daily intake of tiny quantities of oromucosal administered high polyphenolic olive oil before infection significantly improved the time to symptom resolution. This finding strongly support the appropriateness of further deep research on the use of oromucosal administered high polyphenolic olive oil as an effective immune strategy against COVID-19.

Effectiveness and Medicoeconomic Evaluation of Home Monitoring of Patients With Mild COVID-19: Covidom Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Covidom was a telemonitoring solution for home monitoring of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, deployed in March 2020 in the Greater Paris area in France to alleviate the burden on the health care system. The Covidom solution included a free mobile application with daily monitoring questionnaires and a regional control center to quickly handle patient alerts, including dispatching emergency medical services when necessary.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide an overall evaluation of the Covidom solution 18 months after its inception in terms of effectiveness, safety, and cost.

METHODS

Our primary outcome was to measure effectiveness using the number of handled alerts, response escalation, and patient-reported medical contacts outside of Covidom. Then, we analyzed the safety of Covidom by assessing its ability to detect clinical worsening, defined as hospitalization or death, and the number of patients with clinical worsening without any preceding alert. We evaluated the cost of Covidom and compared the cost of hospitalization for Covidom and non-Covidom patients with mild COVID-19 cases seen in the emergency departments of the largest network of hospitals in the Greater Paris area (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris). Finally, we reported on user satisfaction.

RESULTS

Of the 60,073 patients monitored by Covidom, the regional control center handled 285,496 alerts and dispatched emergency medical services 518 times. Of the 13,204 respondents who responded to either of the follow-up questionnaires, 65.8% (n=8690) reported having sought medical care outside the Covidom solution during their monitoring period. Of the 947 patients who experienced clinical worsening while adhering to daily monitoring, only 35 (3.7%) did not previously trigger alerts (35 were hospitalized, including 1 who died). The average cost of Covidom was €54 (US $1=€0.8614) per patient, and the cost of hospitalization for COVID-19 worsening was significantly lower in Covidom than in non-Covidom patients with mild COVID-19 cases seen in the emergency departments of Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris. The patients who responded to the satisfaction questionnaire had a median rating of 9 (out of 10) for the likelihood of recommending Covidom.

CONCLUSIONS

Covidom may have contributed to alleviating the pressure on the health care system in the initial months of the pandemic, although its impact was lower than anticipated, with a substantial number of patients having consulted outside of Covidom. Covidom seems to be safe for home monitoring of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

COVID-19 testing protocols to guide duration of isolation: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 led to a steep rise in transmissions, and emerging variants continue to influence case rates across the US. As public tolerance for isolation abated, CDC guidance on duration of at-home isolation of COVID-19 cases was shortened to five days if no symptoms, with no laboratory test requirement, despite more cautious approaches advocated by other federal experts.

METHODS

We conducted a decision tree analysis of alternative protocols for ending COVID-19 isolation, estimating net costs (direct and productivity), secondary infections, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of input uncertainty.

RESULTS

Per 100 individuals, five-day isolation had 23 predicted secondary infections and a net cost of $33,000. Symptom check on day five (CDC guidance) yielded a 23% decrease in secondary infections (to 17.8), with a net cost of $45,000. Antigen testing on day six yielded 2.9 secondary infections and $63,000 in net costs. This protocol, compared to the next best protocol of antigen testing on day five of a maximum eight-day isolation, cost an additional $1,300 per secondary infection averted. Antigen or polymerase chain reaction testing on day five were dominated (more expensive and less effective) versus antigen testing on day six. Results were qualitatively robust to uncertainty in key inputs.

CONCLUSIONS

A six-day isolation with antigen testing to confirm the absence of contagious virus appears the most effective and cost-effective de-isolation protocol to shorten at-home isolation of individuals with COVID-19.

Elevation of neural injury markers in patients with neurologic sequelae after hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection

Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) risk developing long-term neurologic symptoms after infection. Here, we identify biomarkers associated with neurologic sequelae one year after hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection. SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were followed using post-SARS-CoV-2 online questionnaires and virtual visits. Hospitalized adults from the pre-SARS-CoV-2 era served as historical controls. 40% of hospitalized patients develop neurological sequelae in the year after recovery from acute COVID-19 infection. Age, disease severity, and COVID-19 infection itself was associated with additional risk for neurological sequelae in our cohorts. Glial fibrillary astrocytic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light chain (NF-L) were significantly elevated in SARS-CoV-2 infection. After adjusting for age, sex, and disease severity, GFAP and NF-L remained significantly associated with longer term neurological symptoms in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. GFAP and NF-L warrant exploration as biomarkers for long-term neurologic complications after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Cost-effectiveness of antigen testing for ending COVID-19 isolation

Background

The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 led to a steep rise in transmissions. Recently, as public tolerance for isolation abated, CDC guidance on duration of at-home isolation of COVID-19 cases was shortened to five days if no symptoms, with no lab test requirement, despite more cautious approaches advocated by other federal experts.

Methods

We conducted a decision tree analysis of alternative protocols for ending COVID-19 isolation, estimating net costs (direct and productivity), secondary infections, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of input uncertainty.

Results

Per 100 individuals, five-day isolation had 23 predicted secondary infections and a net cost of $33,000. Symptom check on day five (CDC guidance) yielded a 23% decrease in secondary infections (to 17.8), with a net cost of $45,000. Antigen testing on day six yielded 2.9 secondary infections and $63,000 in net costs. This protocol, compared to the next best protocol of antigen testing on day five of a maximum eight-day isolation, cost an additional $1,300 per secondary infection averted. Antigen or polymerase chain reaction testing on day five were dominated (more expensive and less effective) versus antigen testing on day six. Results were qualitatively robust to uncertainty in key inputs.

Conclusions

A six-day isolation with antigen testing to confirm the absence of contagious virus appears the most effective and cost-effective de-isolation protocol to shorten at-home isolation of individuals with COVID-19.