The Role of Remdesivir in South Africa: Preventing COVID-19 Deaths Through Increasing Intensive Care Unit Capacity

Remdesivir for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in the United States: Optimization of Health Care Resources

INTRODUCTION

In addition to significant morbidity and mortality, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has strained health care systems globally. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir + standard of care (SOC) for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the USA.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis considered direct and indirect costs of remdesivir + SOC versus SOC alone among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US. Patients entered the model stratified according to their baseline ordinal score. At day 15, patients could transition to another health state, and on day 29, they were assumed to have either died or been discharged. Patients were then followed over a 1-year time horizon, where they could transition to death or be rehospitalized.

RESULTS

Treatment with remdesivir + SOC avoided, per patient, a total of 4 hospitalization days: two general ward days and a day for both the intensive care unit and the intensive care unit plus invasive mechanical ventilation compared to SOC alone. Treatment with remdesivir + SOC presented net cost savings due to lower hospitalization and lost productivity costs compared to SOC alone. In increased and decreased hospital capacity scenarios, remdesivir + SOC resulted in more beds and ventilators being available versus SOC alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Remdesivir + SOC alone represents a cost-effective treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This analysis can aid in future decisions on the allocation of healthcare resources.

The National COVID-19 Epi Model (NCEM): Estimating cases, admissions and deaths for the first wave of COVID-19 in South Africa

In March 2020 the South African COVID-19 Modelling Consortium was formed to support government planning for COVID-19 cases and related healthcare. Models were developed jointly by local disease modelling groups to estimate cases, resource needs and deaths due to COVID-19. The National COVID-19 Epi Model (NCEM) while initially developed as a deterministic compartmental model of SARS-Cov-2 transmission in the nine provinces of South Africa, was adapted several times over the course of the first wave of infection in response to emerging local data and changing needs of government. By the end of the first wave, the NCEM had developed into a stochastic, spatially-explicit compartmental transmission model to estimate the total and reported incidence of COVID-19 across the 52 districts of South Africa. The model adopted a generalised Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Removed structure that accounted for the clinical profile of SARS-COV-2 (asymptomatic, mild, severe and critical cases) and avenues of treatment access (outpatient, and hospitalisation in non-ICU and ICU wards). Between end-March and early September 2020, the model was updated 11 times with four key releases to generate new sets of projections and scenario analyses to be shared with planners in the national and provincial Departments of Health, the National Treasury and other partners. Updates to model structure included finer spatial granularity, limited access to treatment, and the inclusion of behavioural heterogeneity in relation to the adoption of Public Health and Social Measures. These updates were made in response to local data and knowledge and the changing needs of the planners. The NCEM attempted to incorporate a high level of local data to contextualise the model appropriately to address South Africa's population and health system characteristics that played a vital role in producing and updating estimates of resource needs, demonstrating the importance of harnessing and developing local modelling capacity.

Remdesivir-related cost-effectiveness and cost and resource use evidence in COVID-19: a systematic review

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a global health emergency since December 2019, leading to millions of deaths worldwide and placing significant pressures, including economic burden, on individual patients and healthcare systems. As of February 2022, remdesivir is the only US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for severe COVID-19. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to summarise economic evaluations, and cost and resource use (CRU) evidence related to remdesivir during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Searches of MEDLINE, Embase the International Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, reference lists, congresses and grey literature were performed in May 2021. Articles were reviewed for relevance against pre-specified criteria by two independent reviewers and study quality was assessed using published checklists.

Results

Eight studies reported resource use and five reported costs related to remdesivir. Over time, the prescription rate of remdesivir increased and time from disease onset to remdesivir initiation decreased. Remdesivir was associated with a 6% to 21.3% decrease in bed occupancy. Cost estimates for remdesivir ranged widely, from $10 to $780 for a 10-day course. In three out of four included economic evaluations, remdesivir treatment scenarios were cost-effective, ranging from ~ 8 to ~ 23% of the willingness-to-pay threshold for the respective country.

Conclusions

Economic evidence relating to remdesivir should be interpreted with consideration of the broader clinical context, including patients’ characteristics and the timing of its administration. Nonetheless, remdesivir remains an important option for physicians in aiming to provide optimal care and relieve pressure on healthcare systems through shifting phases of the pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01930-8.

Dental Healthcare Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

The hustle and bustle of the planet Earth have come to a halt thanks to the novel coronavirus. The virus has affected approximately 219 million people globally; taken the lives of 4.55 million patients as of September 2021; and created an ambiance of fear, social distancing, and economic instability. The purpose of this review article is to trace the historical origin and evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The virus is highly contagious with a unique feature of rapid mutations-the scientific research is paving the way for discoveries regarding novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnosis, features, prevention, and vaccination. The connections between the coronavirus pandemic and dental practices are essential because COVID-19 is transmitted by aerosols, fomites, and respiratory droplets, which are also produced during dental procedures, putting both the patient and the dentist at risk. The main emphasis of this paper is to highlight the psychological, economic, and social impact of this pandemic on dental practices throughout the world and under what circumstances and guidelines can dental health care be provided. In the current situation of the pandemic, an appropriate screening tool must be established either by using rapid molecular testing or saliva point-of-care technology, which will be effective in identifying as well as isolating the potential contacts and carriers in hopes to contain and mitigate infection. The blessing in disguise is that this virus has united the leaders, scientists, health care providers, and people of all professions from all around the world to fight against a common enemy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remdesivir Treatment in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Low-Flow Oxygen Therapy: Payer Perspective in Turkey

Introduction

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir compared to other existing therapies (SoC) in Turkey to treat COVID-19 patients hospitalized with < 94% saturation and low-flow oxygen therapy (LFOT) requirement.

Methods

We compared remdesivir as the treatment for COVID-19 with the treatments in the Turkish treatment guidelines. Analyses were performed using data from 78 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with SpO₂ < 94% who received LFOT in a tertiary healthcare facility. COVID-19 episode costs were calculated for 78 patients considering the cost of modeled remdesivir treatment in the same group from the payer’s perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated for remdesivir versus the SoC for the population identified. For Turkey, a reimbursement threshold value between USD 8599 (1 × per capita gross domestic product—GDP) and USD 25.797 (3 × GDP) per QALY was used.

Results

In the remdesivir arm, the length of hospital stay (LOS) was 3 days shorter than the SOC. The low ventilator requirement in the remdesivir arm was one factor that decreased the QALY disutility value. In patients who were transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) from the ward, the mean LOS was 17.3 days (SD 13.6), and the mean cost of stay was USD 155.3/day (SD 168.0), while in patients who were admitted to ICU at baseline, the mean LOS was 13.1 days (SD 13.7), and the mean cost of stay was USD 207.9/day (SD 133.6). The mean cost of episode per patient was USD 3461.1 (SD 2259.8) in the remdesivir arm and USD 3538.9 (SD 3296.0) in the SOC arm. Incremental QALYs were estimated at 0.174. Remdesivir treatment was determined to be cost saving vs. SoC.

Conclusions

Remdesivir, which results in shorter LOS and lower rates of intubation requirements in ICU patients than existing therapies, is associated with higher QALYs and lower costs, dominating SoC in patients with SpO₂ < 94% who require oxygen support.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01874-9.

Therapeutic Agents Against COVID-19 with Clinical Evidence

Over 57 million people have been confirmed to have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. Although several drugs have shown potential therapeutic effects, there is no specific drug against COVID-19. In this review, we summarized potential therapeutic agents against COVID-19 with clinical evidence, including antiviral agents, anti-cytokine storm syndrome agents, and vaccines, as well as other drugs. In addition, we briefly discussed their effects on COVID-19, which will contribute to developing treatment plans.

Characteristics, management and outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU in hospitals in Bangladesh: a retrospective study

Objectives

This study aimed to analyze the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 cases and investigate risk factors including comorbidities and age in relation with the clinical aftermath of COVID-19 in ICU admitted cases in Bangladesh.

Methods

In this retrospective study, epidemiological and clinical characteristics, complications, laboratory results, and clinical management of the patients were studied from data obtained from 168 individuals diagnosed with an advanced prognosis of COVID-19 admitted in two hospitals in Bangladesh.

Results

Individuals in the study sample contracted COVID-19 through community transmission. 56.5% (n = 95) cases died in intensive care units (ICU) during the study period. The median age was 56 years and 79.2% (n = 134) were male. Typical clinical manifestation included Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related complications (79.2%), fever (54.2%) and cough (25.6%) while diabetes mellitus (52.4%), hypertension (41.1%) and heart diseases (16.7%) were the conventional comorbidities. Clinical outcomes were detrimental due to comorbidities rather than age and comorbid individuals over 50 were at more risk. In the sample, oxygen saturation was low (< 95% SpO2) in 135 patients (80.4%) and 158 (93.4%) patients received supplemental oxygen. Identical biochemical parameters were found in both deceased and surviving cases. Administration of antiviral drug Remdesivir and the glucocorticoid, Dexamethasone increased the proportion of surviving patients slightly.

Conclusions

Susceptibility to developing critical illness due to COVID-19 was found more in comorbid males. These atypical patients require more clinical attention from the prospect of controlling mortality rate in Bangladesh.

Cost-effectiveness of Remdesivir and Dexamethasone for COVID-19 Treatment in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone and remdesivir have the potential to reduce coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID)-related mortality or recovery time, but their cost-effectiveness in countries with limited intensive care resources is unknown.

METHODS

We projected intensive care unit (ICU) needs and capacity from August 2020 to January 2021 using the South African National COVID-19 Epi Model. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of (1) administration of dexamethasone to ventilated patients and remdesivir to nonventilated patients, (2) dexamethasone alone to both nonventilated and ventilated patients, (3) remdesivir to nonventilated patients only, and (4) dexamethasone to ventilated patients only, all relative to a scenario of standard care. We estimated costs from the health care system perspective in 2020 US dollars, deaths averted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of each scenario.

RESULTS

Remdesivir for nonventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients was estimated to result in 408 (uncertainty range, 229-1891) deaths averted (assuming no efficacy [uncertainty range, 0%-70%] of remdesivir) compared with standard care and to save $15 million. This result was driven by the efficacy of dexamethasone and the reduction of ICU-time required for patients treated with remdesivir. The scenario of dexamethasone alone for nonventilated and ventilated patients requires an additional $159 000 and averts 689 [uncertainty range, 330-1118] deaths, resulting in $231 per death averted, relative to standard care.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of remdesivir for nonventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients is likely to be cost-saving compared with standard care by reducing ICU days. Further efforts to improve recovery time with remdesivir and dexamethasone in ICUs could save lives and costs in South Africa.

The COVID-19 Treatment Landscape: A South African Perspective on a Race Against Time

The pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 94 million people worldwide (as of 17 January 2020). Severe disease is believed to be secondary to the cytokine release syndrome (CRS or "cytokine storm") which causes local tissue damage as well as multi-organ dysfunction and thrombotic complications. Due to the high mortality rates in patients receiving invasive ventilation, practice has changed from "early-intubation" for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to a trial of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen. Reports indicating the benefit of NIV and HFNC have been encouraging and have led to more than 20,000 such devices being manufactured and ready for roll-out in South Africa (SA) as of July 2020. The need to identify drugs with clear clinical benefits has led to an array of clinical trials, most of which are repurposing drugs for COVID-19. The treatment landscape reflects the need to target both the virus and its effects such as the CRS and thrombotic complications. Conflicting results have the potential to confuse the implementation of coordinated treatment strategies and guidelines. The purpose of this review is to address pertinent areas in the current literature on the available medical treatment options for COVID-19. Remdesivir, tocilizumab, and dexamethasone are some of the treatment options that have shown the most promise, but further randomized trials are required to particularly address timing and dosages to confidently create standardized protocols. For the SA population, two healthcare sectors exist. In the private sector, patients with medical insurance may have greater access to a wider range of treatment options than those in the public sector. The latter serves >80% of the population, and resource constraints require the identification of drugs with the most cost-effective use for the greatest number of affected patients.

Maternal endothelial dysfunction in HIV-associated preeclampsia comorbid with COVID-19: a review

This review assesses markers of endothelial dysfunction (ED) associated with the maternal syndrome of preeclampsia (PE). We evaluate the role of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected preeclamptic women. Furthermore, we briefly discuss the potential of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), dolutegravir (DTG) and remdesivir (RDV) in drug repurposing and their safety in pregnancy complicated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In HIV infection, the trans-activator of transcription protein, which has homology with vascular endothelial growth factor, impairs angiogenesis, leading to endothelial injury and possible PE development despite neutralization of their opposing immune states. Markers of ED show strong evidence supporting the adverse role of ART in PE development and mortality compared to treatment-naïve pregnancies. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection, exploits angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE 2) to induce ED and hypertension, thereby mimicking angiotensin II-mediated PE in severe cases of infection. Upregulated ACE 2 in pregnancy is a possible risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequent PE development. The potential effectiveness of LPV/r against COVID-19 is inconclusive; however, defective decidualization, along with elevated markers of ED, was observed. Therefore, the safety of these drugs in HIV-positive pregnancies complicated by COVID-19 requires attention. Despite the observed endothelial protective properties of DTG, there is a lack of evidence of its effects on pregnancy and COVID-19 therapeutics. Understanding RDV-ART interactions and the inclusion of pregnant women in antiviral drug repurposing trials is essential. This review provides a platform for further research on PE in the HIV-COVID-19 syndemic.

COVID-19, disability and the context of healthcare triage in South Africa: Notes in a time of pandemic

During disasters, when resources and care are scarce, healthcare workers are required to make decisions and prioritise which patients receive life-saving resources over others. To assist healthcare workers in standardising resources and care, triage policies have been developed. However, the current COVID-19 triage policies and practices in South Africa may exclude or disadvantage many disabled people, especially people with physical and intellectual impairments, from gaining intensive care unit (ICU) access and receiving ventilators if becoming ill. The exclusion of disabled people goes against the principles established in South Africa's Constitution, in which all people are regarded as equal, have the right to life and inherent dignity, the right to access healthcare, as well as the protection of dignity. In addition, the triage policy contravenes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the South African government has signed and ratified. This article raises debates about whose lives matter and whose lives are 'worth' saving over others, and although the focus is on South Africa, the issues may be relevant to other countries where life-saving resources are being rationed.