Emerging Therapies for COVID-19: The Value of Information From More Clinical Trials

Making Drug Approval Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty: Cumulative Evidence versus Value of Information

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the criticality and complexity of decision making for novel treatment approval and further research. Our study aims to assess potential decision-making methodologies, an evaluation vital for refining future public health crisis responses.

METHODS

We compared 4 decision-making approaches to drug approval and research: the Food and Drug Administration's policy decisions, cumulative meta-analysis, a prospective value-of-information (VOI) approach (using information available at the time of decision), and a reference standard (retrospective VOI analysis using information available in hindsight). Possible decisions were to reject, accept, provide emergency use authorization, or allow access to new therapies only in research settings. We used monoclonal antibodies provided to hospitalized COVID-19 patients as a case study, examining the evidence from September 2020 to December 2021 and focusing on each method's capacity to optimize health outcomes and resource allocation.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate a notable discrepancy between policy decisions and the reference standard retrospective VOI approach with expected losses up to $269 billion USD, suggesting suboptimal resource use during the wait for emergency use authorization. Relying solely on cumulative meta-analysis for decision making results in the largest expected loss, while the policy approach showed a loss up to $16 billion and the prospective VOI approach presented the least loss (up to $2 billion).

CONCLUSION

Our research suggests that incorporating VOI analysis may be particularly useful for research prioritization and treatment implementation decisions during pandemics. While the prospective VOI approach was favored in this case study, further studies should validate the ideal decision-making method across various contexts. This study's findings not only enhance our understanding of decision-making strategies during a health crisis but also provide a potential framework for future pandemic responses.

HIGHLIGHTS

This study reviews discrepancies between a reference standard (retrospective VOI, using hindsight information) and 3 conceivable real-time approaches to research-treatment decisions during a pandemic, suggesting suboptimal use of resources.Of all prospective decision-making approaches considered, VOI closely mirrored the reference standard, yielding the least expected value loss across our study timeline.This study illustrates the possible benefit of VOI results and the need for evidence accumulation accompanied by modeling in health technology assessment for emerging therapies.

Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations

Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables. Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation. Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].

A Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Long-Acting Monoclonal Antibody (Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab: Evusheld) Preventive Treatment for High-Risk Populations Against SARS-CoV-2 in Korea

BACKGROUND

Tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld) administration is a recommended strategy for unvaccinated patients with immunocompromised conditions and severe allergic reaction conditions to protect high-risk individuals and control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of Evusheld in key risk populations: 1) immunocompromised (vaccinated/unvaccinated), 2) severe allergic reaction, and 3) unvaccinated elderly high-risk groups.

METHODS

Based on the estimated target risk group population, we used a model of COVID-19 transmission to estimate the size of the risk group population for whom Evusheld treatment may help prevent symptomatic COVID-19 (and deaths) in 2022. We projected Evusheld intervention costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost, cost averted and QALY gained by reduced COVID-19 incidence, and incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per QALY gained) in each modeled population from the healthcare system perspective.

RESULTS

Our study demonstrated that Evusheld treatment for COVID-19 infection in South Korea is highly cost-effective for unvaccinated risk groups ($18,959 per QALY gained for immunocompromised and $23,978 per QALY gained for high-risk elderly groups) and moderately cost-effective among individuals who are vaccinated immunocompromised ($46,494 per QALY gained), or have severe allergic reactions ($45,996 per QALY gained). Evusheld's cost-effectiveness may be subject to risk-group-specific COVID-19 disease progression and Evusheld efficacy and cost, which may change in future epidemic scenarios.

CONCLUSION

As the COVID-19 variants and risk group-specific durable efficacy, toxicity (and/or resistance) and optimal dosing of Evusheld remain uncertain, better empirical estimates to inform these values in different epidemiological contexts are needed. These results may help decision-makers prioritize resources toward more equitable and effective COVID-19 control efforts.

The Value-of-Information and Value-of-Implementation from Clinical Trials of Diagnostic Tests for HIV-Associated Tuberculosis: A Modeling Analysis

Objectives. Conventional value-of-information (VOI) analysis assumes complete uptake of an optimal decision. We employed an extended framework that includes value-of-implementation (VOM)-the benefit of encouraging adoption of an optimal strategy-and estimated how future trials of diagnostic tests for HIV-associated tuberculosis could improve public health decision making and clinical and economic outcomes. Methods. We evaluated the clinical outcomes and costs, given current information, of 3 tuberculosis screening strategies among hospitalized people with HIV in South Africa: sputum Xpert (Xpert), sputum Xpert plus urine AlereLAM (Xpert+AlereLAM), and sputum Xpert plus the newer, more sensitive, and costlier urine FujiLAM (Xpert+FujiLAM). We projected the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of decision making based on results of a trial comparing mortality with each strategy, rather than decision making based solely on current knowledge of FujiLAM's improved diagnostic performance. We used a validated microsimulation to estimate VOI (the INMB of reducing parameter uncertainty before decision making) and VOM (the INMB of encouraging adoption of an optimal strategy). Results. With current information, adopting Xpert+FujiLAM yields 0.4 additional life-years/person compared with current practices (assumed 50% Xpert and 50% Xpert+AlereLAM). While the decision to adopt this optimal strategy is unaffected by information from the clinical trial (VOI = $ 0 at $3,000/year-of-life saved willingness-to-pay threshold), there is value in scaling up implementation of Xpert+FujiLAM, which results in an INMB (representing VOM) of $650 million over 5 y. Conclusions. Conventional VOI methods account for the value of switching to a new optimal strategy based on trial data but fail to account for the persuasive value of trials in increasing uptake of the optimal strategy. Evaluation of trials should include a focus on their value in reducing barriers to implementation.

Highlights

In conventional VOI analysis, it is assumed that the optimal decision will always be adopted even without a trial. This can potentially lead to an underestimation of the value of trials when adoption requires new clinical trial evidence. To capture the influence that a trial may have on decision makers' willingness to adopt the optimal decision, we also consider value-of-implementation (VOM), a metric quantifying the benefit of new study information in promoting wider adoption of the optimal strategy. The overall value-of-a-trial (VOT) includes both VOI and VOM.Our model-based analysis suggests that the information obtained from a trial of screening strategies for HIV-associated tuberculosis in South Africa would have no value, when measured using traditional methods of VOI assessment. A novel strategy, which includes the urine FujiLAM test, is optimal from a health economic standpoint but is underutilized. A trial would reduce uncertainties around downstream health outcomes but likely would not change the optimal decision. The high VOT (nearly $700 million over 5 y) lies solely in promoting uptake of FujiLAM, represented as VOM.Our results highlight the importance of employing a more comprehensive approach for evaluating prospective trials, as conventional VOI methods can vastly underestimate their value. Trialists and funders can and should assess the VOT metric instead when considering trial designs and costs. If VOI is low, the VOM and cost of a trial can be compared with the benefits and costs of other outreach programs to determine the most cost-effective way to improve uptake.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is being studied and used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to systematically identify, critically evaluate, and summarize the findings of the studies on the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this systematic review, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 2019 and 2022. We included all full economic evaluations of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Data were summarized in a structured and narrative manner.

RESULTS

Out of 616 articles obtained in this literature search, 12 studies were included in the final analysis. The mean score of the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) for the studies was 87.66 (high quality). All studies were conducted in high-income countries (eight studies in the USA and one study in England), except for three studies from middle-to-high-income countries (China, South Africa, and Turkey). Six studies conducted their economic analysis in terms of a health system perspective; five studies conducted their economic analysis from a payer perspective; three studies from the perspective of a health care provider. The results of five studies showed that remdesivir was cost-effective compared to standard treatment. Furthermore, the therapeutic strategy of combining remdesivir with baricitinib was cost-effective compared to remdesivir alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the present study, remdesivir appears to be cost-effective in comparison with the standard of care in China, Turkey, and South Africa. Studies conducted in the United States show conflicting results, and combining remdesivir with baricitinib is cost-effective compared with remdesivir alone. However, the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in low-income countries remains unknown. Thus, more studies in different countries are required to determine the cost-effectiveness of this drug.

Globally optimal trial design and risk sharing arrangements are key to avoiding opportunity costs of delay and enabling equitable, feasible and effective global vaccine research and implementation in current or future pandemics

Global vaccination in the face of pandemics such as COVID-19 and new variants is a race against time. Avoiding the opportunity costs of delay and the associated health, social, and downstream economic impacts is a challenge and an imperative. Failures to address the global challenges posed by COVID-19 have become increasingly evident as waves of vaccine-evading mutations have emerged, facilitated by unequal vaccination coverage and diminishing immunity against new variants worldwide. To address these challenges, societal decision-makers (governments) and industry manufacturer interests must be better aligned for rapid, globally optimal trial design, ideally with research coverage, implementation, and accessibility of effective vaccines across joint research, implementation, and distribution cycles to address pandemic evolution in real time. Value of information (VoI) methods for optimal global trial design and risk-sharing arrangements align the research, distribution, and implementation interests and efforts globally to meet head-on the imperative of avoiding opportunity costs of delay and enabling consistent global solutions with maximizing local and global net benefits. They uniquely enable feasible early adoption of the most promising strategies in real time while the best globally translatable evidence is collected and interests are aligned for global distribution and implementation. Furthermore, these methods are generally shown to be imperative for feasible, fast, and optimal solutions across joint research, reimbursement, and regulatory processes for current and future pandemics and other global existential threats. Establishing pathways for globally optimal trial designs, risk-sharing agreements, and efficient translation to practice is urgent on many fronts.