Cost-effectiveness of Favipiravir in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients in the real-world setting of Saudi arabian pandemic referral hospitals.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of Favipiravir treatment versus standard of care (SC) in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients from the Saudi healthcare payer perspective. Methods: We used the patient-level simulation method to simulate a cohort of 415 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease who were admitted to two Saudi COVID-19 referral hospitals: 220 patients on Favipiravir and 195 patients on SC. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Favipiravir versus SC in terms of the probability to be discharged alive from hospital and the mean time in days to discharge one patient alive. The model was performed twice: first, using unweighted, and second, using weighted clinical and economic data. Weighting using the inverse weight probability method was performed to achieve balance in baseline characteristics. Results: In the unweighted model, base case (probabilistic) ICER estimates favored Favipiravir at savings of Saudi Riyal (SAR)1,611,511 (SAR1,998,948) per 1% increase in the probability of being discharged alive. As to mean time to discharging one patient alive, ICERs favored Favipiravir at savings of SAR11,498 (SAR11,125). Similar results were observed in the weighted model with savings using Favipiravir of SAR1,514,893 (SAR2,453,551) per 1% increase in the probability of being discharged alive, and savings of SAR11,989 (SAR11,277) for each day a patient is discharged alive. Conclusion: From the payer perspective, the addition of Favipiravir in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients was cost-savings over SC. Favipiravir was associated with a higher probability of discharging patients alive and lower daily spending on hospitalization than SC.

Severity of COVID-19 infection in ACEI/ARB users in specialty hospitals: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The uncertainty about COVID-19 outcomes in angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) users continues with contradictory findings. This study aimed to determine the effect of ACEI/ARB use in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was done in two Saudi public specialty hospitals designated as COVID-19 referral facilities. We included 354 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 between April and June 2020, of which 146 were ACEI/ARB users and 208 were non-ACEI/ARB users. Controlling for confounders, we conducted multivariate logistic regression and sensitivity analyses using propensity score matching (PSM) and Inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW) for high-risk patient subsets. RESULTS: Compared to non-ACEI/ARB users, ACEI/ARB users had an eight-fold higher risk of developing critical or severe COVID-19 (OR = 8.25, 95%CI = 3.32-20.53); a nearly 7-fold higher risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (OR = 6.76, 95%CI = 2.88-15.89) and a nearly 5-fold higher risk of requiring noninvasive ventilation (OR = 4.77,95%CI = 2.15-10.55). Patients with diabetes, hypertension, and/or renal disease had a five-fold higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease (OR = 5.40,95%CI = 2.0-14.54]. These results were confirmed in the PSM and IPSW analyses. CONCLUSION: In general, but especially among patients with hypertension, diabetes, and/or renal disease, ACEI/ARB use is associated with a significantly higher risk of severe or critical COVID-19 disease, and ICU care.

Effectiveness and safety of favipiravir compared to supportive care in moderately to critically ill COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study with propensity score matching sensitivity analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Favipiravir is a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Due to a lack of available real-world data, we assessed its effectiveness and safety in moderately to critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in two public/specialty hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included patients ≥18 years) admitted April-August 2020 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab. Patients received either favipiravir (1800 mg or 1600 mg twice daily loading dose, followed by 800 mg or 600 mg twice daily) or supportive-care treatment. Patients were excluded if they were outside the study period, classified as having a mild form of the disease per WHO criteria, or had an incomplete patient file. Kaplan-Meier (KM) models were used to estimate median time to discharge. Discharge ratios, progression to mechanical ventilation, and mortality outcomes were estimated across the severity spectrum using Cox proportional-hazards models. As a sensitivity analysis, we performed propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. RESULTS: Overall, median time to discharge was 10 days (95%CI = 9-10) in the favipiravir arm versus 15 days (95%CI = 14-16) in the supportive-care arm. The accelerated discharge benefit was seen across the COVID-19 spectrum of severity. The adjusted discharge ratio was 1.96 (95%CI = 1.56-2.46). Progression to mechanical ventilation was slower with favipiravir (HRadj = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.04-0.29). There was no significant effect on mortality (HRadj = 1.56, 95%CI = 0.73-3.36). There was a statistically non-significant trend toward worse outcomes in the critical category (HRadj = 2.80, 95%CI = 0.99-7.89). Age was an independent risk factor for mortality in mechanically ventilated patients. PSM analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Favipiravir was associated with clinical benefits, including accelerated discharge rate and less progression to mechanical ventilation; however, no overall mortality benefits were seen across the severity spectrum.