Protocol for an OpenSAFELY cohort study collecting patient-reported outcome measures using the TPP Airmid smartphone application and linked big data to quantify the health and economic costs of long COVID (OpenPROMPT).

INTRODUCTION: The impact of long COVID on health-related quality of-life (HRQoL) and productivity is not currently known. It is important to understand who is worst affected by long COVID and the cost to the National Health Service (NHS) and society, so that strategies like booster vaccines can be prioritised to the right people. OpenPROMPT aims to understand the impact of long COVID on HRQoL in adults attending English primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will ask people to participate in this cohort study through a smartphone app (Airmid), and completing a series of questionnaires held within the app. Questionnaires will ask about HRQoL, productivity and symptoms of long COVID. Participants will be asked to fill in the questionnaires once a month, for 90 days. Questionnaire responses will be linked, where possible, to participants' existing health records from primary care, secondary care, and COVID testing and vaccination data. Analysis will take place using the OpenSAFELY data platform and will estimate the impact of long COVID on HRQoL, productivity and cost to the NHS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Proportionate Review Sub-Committee of the South Central-Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee has reviewed and approved the study and have agreed that we can ask people to take part (22/SC/0198). Our results will provide information to support long-term care, and make recommendations for prevention of long COVID in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05552612.

Cost-effectiveness of casirivimab/imdevimab in patients with COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting.

BACKGROUND: Most patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, resulting in COVID-19, have only mild symptoms that can be managed in an ambulatory setting. However, a significant number of patients develop a more severe form of the disease and require hospital care, with the risk of long-term sequelae or death. Casirivimab/imdevimab is a combination of 2 recombinant human monoclonal antibodies that has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization or death in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting. OBJECTIVE: To establish the cost-effectiveness of casirivimab/imdevimab in ambulatory individuals with COVID-19. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was constructed to simulate the natural history of COVID-19 in ambulatory patients and to identify those patients for whom casirivimab/imdevimab may be a cost-effective treatment from a US payer perspective. Patients enter the model in the ambulatory health state and can receive either active treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab or usual care. Patients can either recover from the infection or be hospitalized, from where they can recover from infection or die. Following this acute phase, patients enter a Markov model to estimate lifetime quality-adjusted life years. The model uses the risk of hospitalization in both the active treatment and usual care cohorts, and age- and sex-specific risk of mortality. Other model inputs include hospitalization costs and health-related utilities in the ambulatory acute treatment phase, the hospitalized setting, and the post-acute phase. Accounting for the heterogeneity of risk by age and comorbidities, results are presented separately for various combinations of baseline age and usual care risk in a 7 × 9 matrix. Outcomes related to "long COVID" are assessed in scenario analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab was found to be cost-effective in most patients, including those older than 40 years of age with a baseline hospitalization risk greater than or equal to 2% and patients aged 20 years with a baseline risk of hospitalization greater than or equal to 4%, whereas for hospitalization risk greater than or equal to 10%, casirivimab/imdevimab is dominant. Casirivimab/imdevimab was not cost-effective in patients aged 20 years with a 3% or lower risk of hospitalization or in patients aged 30 years with a 2% risk. CONCLUSIONS: This economic analysis found that casirivimab/imdevimab is a cost-effective treatment for most ambulatory patients with COVID-19. DISCLOSURES: N. Jovanoski and U. Becker are employees of F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.; A. Kuznik and M. Hussein are employees of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and hold stock and stock options; A. Briggs has provided consultancy to F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. and has received consultancy fees from Merck and Co., Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., and Novartis. This study was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Molnupiravir Versus Best Supportive Care for the Treatment of Outpatient COVID-19 in Adults in the US.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) imposes a substantial and ongoing burden on the US healthcare system and society. Molnupiravir is a new oral antiviral for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness profile of molnupiravir versus best supportive care in the treatment of adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at risk of progression to severe disease, from a US payer's perspective. METHODS: The model was developed using a decision tree for the short-term acute phase of COVID-19 and a Markov state transition model for the long-term post-acute phase. This model compared molnupiravir with best supportive care as consistent with the MOVe-OUT trial. Costs were reported in 2021 US dollars. Transition probabilities were derived from the phase III MOVe-OUT trial and the TriNetX real-world electronic health records database. Costs were derived from the TriNetX database and utility values from a de novo, vignette-based utility study. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA/PSA) were conducted. Primary outcomes included proportion hospitalized, proportion who died overall and by highest healthcare setting at the end of the acute phase, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained over a lifetime (100 years) horizon, discounted at 3% annually and assessed at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. RESULTS: In this model, the use of molnupiravir led to an increase in QALYs (0.210) and decrease in direct total medical costs (-$895) per patient across a lifetime horizon, compared with best supportive care in COVID-19 outpatients. Molnupiravir was the dominant intervention when compared with best supportive care. Patients treated with molnupiravir were less likely to be hospitalized (6.38% vs. 9.20%) and more likely to remain alive (99.88% vs. 98.71%) during the acute phase. Through DSA, molnupiravir treatment effect of hospitalization reduction was identified to be the most influential parameter, and through PSA, molnupiravir remained dominant in 84% of the total simulations and, overall, 100% cost effective. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that molnupiravir is cost effective compared with best supportive care for the treatment of adult outpatients with COVID-19. However, our study was limited by the unavailability of the most recent information on the rapidly evolving pandemic, including new viral variants, patient populations affected, and changes in standards of care. Further research should explore the impact of vaccination on the cost effectiveness of molnupiravir and other therapies, based on real-world data, to account for these changes, including the impact of vaccination and immunity.

Principles of Economic Evaluation in a Pandemic Setting: An Expert Panel Discussion on Value Assessment During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to generate significant morbidity and mortality as well as economic and societal impacts, the landscape of potential treatments has slowly begun to broaden. In the case of a novel disease with widespread consequences, society is more likely to place significant value on interventions that reduce the outsized economic burden of COVID-19. Treatments for severe disease will have a different value profile to that of large-scale vaccines because of their application in targeted and potentially small subsets of those with symptomatic disease vs broad deployment as a preventative measure. Where vaccines reduce transmissibility of COVID-19, use of therapeutics will target symptoms, up to and including death for infected individuals. This paper describes discussions from a virtual expert panel that met to attempt a consensus on how existing principles of economic evaluation should be applied to therapeutics that emerge in a pandemic setting, with specific focus on severe hospitalised cases of COVID-19. The panel concluded that the core principles of economic evaluation do not need to be drastically overhauled to meet the challenges of a pandemic, but that there are several additional elements of value such as equity, disease severity, insurance value, and scientific and family spillover effects that should be considered when presenting results to decision makers. The panel also highlighted the persistent challenges on how society should value novel therapies, such as the appropriate cost-effectiveness threshold to apply, which are particularly salient during a pandemic.

The need for adaptable global guidance in health systems strengthening for musculoskeletal health: a qualitative study of international key informants.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, MSK pain and MSK injury/trauma are the largest contributors to the global burden of disability, yet global guidance to arrest the rising disability burden is lacking. We aimed to explore contemporary context, challenges and opportunities at a global level and relevant to health systems strengthening for MSK health, as identified by international key informants (KIs) to inform a global MSK health strategic response. METHODS: An in-depth qualitative study was undertaken with international KIs, purposively sampled across high-income and low and middle-income countries (LMICs). KIs identified as representatives of peak global and international organisations (clinical/professional, advocacy, national government and the World Health Organization), thought leaders, and people with lived experience in advocacy roles. Verbatim transcripts of individual semi-structured interviews were analysed inductively using a grounded theory method. Data were organised into categories describing 1) contemporary context; 2) goals; 3) guiding principles; 4) accelerators for action; and 5) strategic priority areas (pillars), to build a data-driven logic model. Here, we report on categories 1-4 of the logic model. RESULTS: Thirty-one KIs from 20 countries (40% LMICs) affiliated with 25 organisations participated. Six themes described contemporary context (category 1): 1) MSK health is afforded relatively lower priority status compared with other health conditions and is poorly legitimised; 2) improving MSK health is more than just healthcare; 3) global guidance for country-level system strengthening is needed; 4) impact of COVID-19 on MSK health; 5) multiple inequities associated with MSK health; and 6) complexity in health service delivery for MSK health. Five guiding principles (category 3) focussed on adaptability; inclusiveness through co-design; prevention and reducing disability; a lifecourse approach; and equity and value-based care. Goals (category 2) and seven accelerators for action (category 4) were also derived. CONCLUSION: KIs strongly supported the creation of an adaptable global strategy to catalyse and steward country-level health systems strengthening responses for MSK health. The data-driven logic model provides a blueprint for global agencies and countries to initiate appropriate whole-of-health system reforms to improve population-level prevention and management of MSK health. Contextual considerations about MSK health and accelerators for action should be considered in reform activities.

Tweets by People With Arthritis During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Content and Sentiment Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that people with arthritis are reporting increased physical pain and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, Twitter's daily usage has surged by 23% throughout the pandemic period, presenting a unique opportunity to assess the content and sentiment of tweets. Individuals with arthritis use Twitter to communicate with peers, and to receive up-to-date information from health professionals and services about novel therapies and management techniques. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to identify proxy topics of importance for individuals with arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore the emotional context of tweets by people with arthritis during the early phase of the pandemic. METHODS: From March 20 to April 20, 2020, publicly available tweets posted in English and with hashtag combinations related to arthritis and COVID-19 were extracted retrospectively from Twitter. Content analysis was used to identify common themes within tweets, and sentiment analysis was used to examine positive and negative emotions in themes to understand the COVID-19 experiences of people with arthritis. RESULTS: In total, 149 tweets were analyzed. The majority of tweeters were female and were from the United States. Tweeters reported a range of arthritis conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and psoriatic arthritis. Seven themes were identified: health care experiences, personal stories, links to relevant blogs, discussion of arthritis-related symptoms, advice sharing, messages of positivity, and stay-at-home messaging. Sentiment analysis demonstrated marked anxiety around medication shortages, increased physical symptom burden, and strong desire for trustworthy information and emotional connection. CONCLUSIONS: Tweets by people with arthritis highlight the multitude of concurrent concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding these concerns, which include heightened physical and psychological symptoms in the context of treatment misinformation, may assist clinicians to provide person-centered care during this time of great health uncertainty.

Estimating (quality-adjusted) life-year losses associated with deaths: With application to COVID-19.

Many epidemiological models of the COVID-19 pandemic have focused on preventing deaths. Questions have been raised as to the frailty of those succumbing to the COVID-19 infection. In this paper we employ standard life table methods to illustrate how the potential quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) losses associated with COVID-19 fatalities could be estimated, while adjusting for comorbidities in terms of impact on both mortality and quality of life. Contrary to some suggestions in the media, we find that even relatively elderly patients with high levels of comorbidity can still lose substantial life years and QALYs. The simplicity of the method facilitates straightforward international comparisons as the pandemic evolves. In particular, we compare five different countries and show that differences in the average QALY losses for each COVID-19 fatality is driven mainly by differing age distributions for those dying of the disease.

Global health policy in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities to arrest the global disability burden from musculoskeletal health conditions.

The profound burden of disease associated with musculoskeletal health conditions is well established. Despite the unequivocal disability burden and personal and societal consequences, relative to other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), system-level responses for musculoskeletal conditions that are commensurate with their burden have been lacking nationally and globally. Health policy priorities and responses in the 21st century have evolved significantly from the 20th century, with health systems now challenged by an increasing prevalence and impact of NCDs and an unprecedented rate of global population ageing. Further, health policy priorities are now strongly aligned to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. With this background, what are the challenges and opportunities available to influence global health policy to support high-value care for musculoskeletal health conditions and persistent pain? This paper explores these issues by considering the current global health policy landscape, the role of global health networks, and progress and opportunities since the 2000-2010 Bone and Joint Decade for health policy to support improved musculoskeletal health and high-value musculoskeletal health care.