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.

Iran's Struggling Health System in the Policy of Managing the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Infectious diseases are one of the most important problems that affect the whole world. The World Health Organization (WHO), an active health organization, has identified coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) as a public health emergency and advises governments not to waste time on effective measures and interventions to attack and suppress the virus. In Iran, so far, the total number of screening tests has exceeded 21 million tests and more than 5 million doses of vaccine have been injected. However, we are still far from controlling the epidemic wave. Given the current situation, it is necessary to identify the challenges of managing the new coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19) in the country's medical universities. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted from January 2020 to January 2021 to explore the views of a group of service providers and staff managers of medical universities who were selected via purposeful sampling (n = 47). Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using Graneheim and Lundman's conventional content analysis methods. The trial version of MAXQDA 16 software was used to manage the coding process. Results: Upon analysis of data by service providers and staff managers of medical universities, five main themes including governance and leadership, service delivery, human resources, medicine and technology, and financing and 15 sub-themes including management and leadership, culture and society, process, infrastructure, manpower, training and skills, mental pressure, work pressure, nutrition, safety, employee motivation, medical equipment, medicine, payment, and funds were found. Conclusions: Identification of the most important challenges of service providers and staff managers can play an important role in improving the management of the new coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19). It seems that in order to solve some of these challenges, coordination is needed outside the field of health, and considering the formation of the National Corona Headquarters at the national level, it is possible to use this infrastructure to provide the necessary policies and strategies.

Private Demand for Covid-19 Vaccine: A Contingent Assessment from a Low-and Middle-income Country.

This study aimed to estimate Iranian willingness to pay (WTP) for a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine and its determinants. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from May 2nd to 20th, 2020 among the general population of Iran to estimate WTP for hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines. Four scenarios with different levels of efficacy and duration of protection were presented to respondents in the payment card scale of the contingent valuation method (CVM). With the corresponding WTPs under different scenarios, mean, trimmed mean, median WTP values, and vaccine demand was estimated. A semi-log regression model was employed to identify key factors. The vaccine acceptance rate and positive WTP were about 70% and 80%, respectively. The reluctant individuals believed free vaccination is a government responsibility. The highest trimmed mean and median WTP values were the US $15 and $4 for the vaccine with more than 80% efficacy and one-time vaccination. The median decreased to the US $2 in less effective scenarios. The vaccine demand was price-inelastic. Price, self-assessment virus risk, age, gender, education, income, and working in the health sector were significant factors. Given the price inelasticity of the COVID-19 vaccine, providing free vaccination by the Iranian government is highly recommended, particularly for low-income and vulnerable individuals.

Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions against COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-Pharmaceutical Public Health Interventions (NPHIs) have been used by different countries to control the spread of the COVID-19. Despite available evidence regarding the effectiveness of NPHSs, there is still no consensus about how policymakers can trust these results. Studies on the effectiveness of NPHSs are single studies conducted in specific communities. Therefore, they cannot individually prove if these interventions have been effective in reducing the spread of the infection and its adverse health outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to examine the effects of NPHIs on the COVID-19 case growth rate, death growth rate, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and reproduction number in countries, where NPHIs have been implemented. We searched relevant electronic databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, etc. from late December 2019 to February 1, 2021. The key terms were primarily drawn from Medical Subject Heading (MeSh and Emtree), literature review, and opinions of experts. Peer-reviewed quasi-experimental studies were included in the review. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020186855. Interventions were NPHIs categorized as lockdown, stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and other interventions (mask-wearing, contact tracing, and school closure). We used PRISMA 2020 guidance for abstracting the data and used Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Practice (EPOC) Risk of Bias Tool for quality appraisal of the studies. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random-effects model was performed. Main outcomes included COVID-19 case growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 mortality growth rate (percentage daily changes), COVID-19 ICU admission (percentage daily changes), and COVID-19 reproduction number changes. Our search strategies in major databases yielded 12,523 results, which decreased to 7,540 articles after eliminating duplicates. Finally, 35 articles qualified to be included in the systematic review among which 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Although studies were from both low-income and high-income countries, the majority of them were from the United States (13 studies) and China (five studies). Results of the meta-analysis showed that adoption of NPHIs has resulted in a 4.68% (95% CI, -6.94 to -2.78) decrease in daily case growth rates, 4.8% (95 CI, -8.34 to -1.40) decrease in daily death growth rates, 1.90 (95% CI, -2.23 to -1.58) decrease in the COVID-19 reproduction number, and 16.5% (95% CI, -19.68 to -13.32) decrease in COVID-19 daily ICU admission. A few studies showed that, early enforcement of lockdown, when the incidence rate is not high, contributed to a shorter duration of lockdown and a lower increase of the case growth rate in the post-lockdown era. The majority of NPHIs had positive effects on restraining the COVID-19 spread. With the problems that remain regarding universal access to vaccines and their effectiveness and considering the drastic impact of the nationwide lockdown and other harsh restrictions on the economy and people's life, such interventions should be mitigated by adopting other NPHIs such as mass mask-wearing, patient/suspected case isolation strategies, and contact tracing. Studies need to address the impact of NPHIs on the population's other health problems than COVID-19.

The lost productivity cost of absenteeism due to COVID-19 in health care workers in Iran: a case study in the hospitals of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences.

BACKGROUND: Human resources management plays an important role in social development and economic growth. Absence from work due to health problems can make obstacles to the growth of economy. This study conducted aimed to estimate the absenteeism costs of COVID-19 among the personnel of hospitals affiliated to Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Mashhad, Iran. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted between February 19, 2020, and September 21, 2020. The absenteeism costs were calculated using the human capital approach. Finally, we applied the linear regression to assess the impact of variables on the lost productivity of absenteeism due to COVID-19 among the personnel of hospitals affiliated to Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. RESULTS: The results of this study showed that 1958 personnel had COVID-19. The total of absenteeism days in our study were 32,209 days, with an average of 16.44 absenteeism days. Total costs due to absenteeism were estimated to be nearly $1.3 million, with an average of $671.4 per patient. The results of regression model showed that gender (male), age (> 50 years), employment Type (non-permanent) and monthly income had a positive relationship with the absenteeism cost. Also, there are a negative significant relationship between absenteeism cost with job (physicians) and work experience. CONCLUSIONS: Absenteeism costs of COVID-19 in the hospitals of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences represent a significant economic burden. The findings of our study emphasize the emergency strategies to prevent and control COVID-19 among the healthcare workers. It can decrease the economic impacts of COVID-19 and improve human resources management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Economic evaluation of programs against COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a public health emergency and raised global concerns in about 213 countries without vaccines and with limited medical capacity to treat the disease. The COVID-19 has prompted an urgent search for effective interventions, and there is little information about the money value of treatments. The present study aimed to summarize economic evaluation evidence of preventing strategies, programs, and treatments of COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and specialized databases of economic evaluation from December 2019 to July 2020 to identify relevant literature to economic evaluation of programs against COVID-19. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from full-text articles, and did their quality assessment by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Then, quality synthesis of results was done. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies of economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. The CHEERS scores for most studies (n = 9) were 85 or higher (excellent quality). Eight studies scored 70 to 85 (good quality), eight studies scored 55 to 70 (average quality), and one study < %55 (poor quality). The decision-analytic modeling was applied to twenty-three studies (88%) to evaluate their services. Most studies utilized the SIR model for outcomes. In studies with long-time horizons, social distancing was more cost-effective than quarantine, non-intervention, and herd immunity. Personal protective equipment was more cost-effective in the short-term than non-intervention. Screening tests were cost-effective in all studies. CONCLUSION: The results suggested screening tests and social distancing to be cost-effective alternatives in preventing and controlling COVID-19 on a long-time horizon. However, evidence is still insufficient and too heterogeneous to allow any definite conclusions regarding costs of interventions. Further research as are required in the future.

Elderly's food security and its associated socioeconomic determinants in Tehran: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: The mechanism by which a suppressed immune system of a cancer patient makes them susceptible to COVID-19 is still unclear. Any delay or discontinuation of cancer care due to the pandemic is expected to have a detrimental impact on the outcome of cancer. A few studies have addressed the incidence of COVID-19 among cancer patients, but the small sample size of such studies makes it difficult to draw inference to the general population. METHODS: For our review, 'Pubmed' database and Google search engines were used for searching the relevant articles. The criterion used for review includes their relevance to the defined review question, which is the pathophysiological mechanism of COVID-19 among cancer patients and the relevant therapeutic interventions therewith. This review includes 20 studies and other relevant literature which address the determinants of COVID-19 among Cancer patients. RESULTS: Delay in cancer diagnosis will increase the stage progression of cancer patients and increased mortality in the future. A short delay in administering cancer related treatment to aid the odds of patient surviving the acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, should be at the discretion of the treating Physician. Oncologists dilemma in the current situation includes titrating the density of drug doses and intensity of treatment regimen, for the optimal management of metastatic and adjuvant cancer patients. Patients are thus subjected to suboptimal treatment and undetected disease recurrence, To circumvent the immunosuppressive effects of chemotherapy, Providers need to consider staggered regimen or alternate therapies such as biological/immunotherapy, targeted therapy, anti-angiogenic drugs, hormone therapy and/or antibody-based therapeutics. CONCLUSION: This review provides insights on the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2, which could enable Physicians in formulating therapeutic strategies for the management of severe patients, more so in Oncology settings, thus reducing the mortality. The key is to balance the continuation of urgent cancer care, but rationing the elective treatment according to the circumstances.

Effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical public health interventions against COVID-19; a protocol of a systematic review and realist review.

BACKGROUND: Without any pharmaceutical intervention and vaccination, the only way to combat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is to slow down the spread of the disease by adopting non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (PHIs). Patient isolation, lockdown, quarantine, social distancing, changes in health care provision, and mass screening are the most common non-pharmaceutical PHIs to cope with the epidemic. However, there is neither systematic evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the COVID-19 nor on how these interventions work in different contexts. Therefore, in this study we will address two main objectives: 1) to assess the effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19 using a systematic review and meta-analyses; 2) to explore why, how, and for whom these interventions work using a realist review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review study has two main phases. In the first phase of this study, we will extract data from two main types of studies including quasi-experimental studies (such as quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs)) and observational studies (such as cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies), written in the English language. We will explore effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs targeted either suppression or mitigation strategies (or a combination of both) in controlling the COVID-19 epidemics in the community level. Effectiveness will be considered as the changes in mortality rate, incidence rate, basic reproduction number rate, morbidity rate, rates of hospitalization, rates of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and other health outcomes where possible. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses, if possible, using CMA software. In the second phase, we will conduct a realist review to find out how, why, for whom, and in what circumstances the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work. At the realist review, we will identify and explore Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations to provide a robust explanation on the effectiveness of the interventions in different contexts using Pawson's 5-step realist review template including: "clarify scope; search for evidence; appraise primary studies and extract data; synthesize evidence and draw conclusions; and disseminate, implement and evaluate". Although the steps are presented in a linear manner, in practice, we will follow them in iterative stages to fill any potential overlap. DISCUSSION: The findings of this research will provide a crucial insight into how and in which context the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with a realist review will allow us to draw a robust conclusion on the effects and the way in which the interventions work. Understanding the role of contextual factors in the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs and the mechanism of this process could enable policymakers to implement appropriate policies and manage the COVID-19 epidemics more efficiently. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42020186855.

Resource Utilization and Cost of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Iran: Rationale and Design of a Protocol

There is little data on direct medical costs and how to overcome the shock introduced by the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) which emerged in Wuhan, China. The aim of this report is to present the methodology of an observational study for analyzing the resource utilization and direct medical costs of hospitalization. A multicenter retrospective observational study will be conducted on hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in selected hospitals of Tehran University Medical Sciences from February to June 2020. Cost calculations will be based on micro-costing approaches according to the health insurance perspective. Demographic, clinical, and cost data for the aforementioned patients will be collected through reviews of medical and financial records using a self-made checklist categorized in three parts. The first part consists of demographic characteristics, the second part includes clinical information (e.g., symptoms, comorbidities, and complications), and the third part consists of resource utilization and cost data. Descriptive statistics (means, frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals) will be used to report data. With this report we sought to provide a valuable framework for estimating the direct medical costs of COVID-19 for hospitalized-patients basis on the severity of presentation. This will be the core for an assessment of the economic burden of COVID-19 in different presentations of the disease.