Cost estimation of COVID Kavach test developed in 2020: A National Reference Laboratory initiative during early phase of Indian pandemic mitigation.

BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES: A new indigenously developed technology, coronavirus disease (COVID) Kavach, an IgG immunoglobulin-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit, was developed in 2020 by the Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Virology (ICMR-NIV), Pune, India. The primary objective of this study was to determine the total cost of development of COVID Kavach IgG ELISA and estimate the unit cost (UC) as well. METHODS: The total development cost (TDC) of COVID Kavach and its UC during the early phase of pandemic mitigation were estimated through a micro-costing approach from provider's perspective. An activity-based bottom-up costing approach was used to facilitate data collection from all resources, and analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel version 2016. The micro-costing data were utilized to interpret the breakdown of cost across all inputs and different levels of activity. RESULTS: The TDC of COVID Kavach was estimated to be JOURNAL/ijmer/04.03/02223309-202310000-00007/363FF04/v/2023-11-25T134903Z/r/image-tiff 2,884,032 (US$ 38,265). The UC of providing test results for exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was estimated to be JOURNAL/ijmer/04.03/02223309-202310000-00007/363FF04/v/2023-11-25T134903Z/r/image-tiff 300 (US$ 4) during July 2020. The capital and recurrent cost were incurred around 5-10 per cent and 90-95 per cent, respectively, in both the development and UC of COVID Kavach. The major portion of funds (70-80%) was utilized for procurement of laboratory consumables, followed by human resources (8-12%) in the development as well as for UC of COVID Kavach. INTERPRETATION CONCLUSIONS: The estimates from this study can be useful for conducting economic evaluations, which will help in deciding upon the subsidy in government health facilities. The data may be useful to set up laboratory facilities analogous to the National Reference Laboratory located at the ICMR-NIV, Pune and for allotting sufficient budget to develop such assays in government-funded laboratories.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who fail metformin monotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and to pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) compared with other therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after metformin monotherapy failure. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study design is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Tufts Registry for eligible cost-utility studies up to June 2018, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. We conducted a systematic review and pooled the INBs of GLP1s compared with other therapies in T2DM after metformin monotherapy failure. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2017 US$. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies, stratified by level of country income; a random-effects model was used if heterogeneity was present, and a fixed-effects model if it was absent. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of 56 studies were eligible, mainly from high-income countries (HICs). The pooled INBs of GLP1s compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) (n=10), sulfonylureas (n=6), thiazolidinedione (TZD) (n=3), and insulin (n=23) from HICs were US$4012.21 (95% CI US$-571.43 to US$8595.84, I2=0%), US$3857.34 (95% CI US$-7293.93 to US$15 008.61, I2=45.9%), US$37 577.74 (95% CI US$-649.02 to US$75 804.50, I2=92.4%) and US$14 062.42 (95% CI US$8168.69 to US$19 956.15, I2=86.4%), respectively. GLP1s were statistically significantly cost-effective compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas, and TZDs. Among GLP1s, liraglutide was more cost-effective compared with lixisenatide, but not compared with exenatide, with corresponding pooled INBs of US$4555.09 (95% CI US$3992.60 to US$5117.59, I2=0) and US$728.46 (95% CI US$-1436.14 to US$2893.07, I2=0), respectively. CONCLUSION: GLP1 agonists are a cost-effective choice compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas and TZDs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018105193.

Cost Utility of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Metformin Monotherapy Failed Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and associated ailments are leading economic burdens to society. Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are recent antidiabetic medications with beneficial clinical efficacy. This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in T2DM patients who failed metformin monotherapy. METHODS: Relevant economic evaluation studies of T2DM patients were identified from PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library, and the Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis Registry until June 2018. Studies were eligible if they studied T2DM patients who failed metformin monotherapy and assessed the cost-effectiveness/utility between SGLT2 inhibitors and other treatments. Details of the study characteristics, economic model inputs, costs, and outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the biases in economic studies (ECOBIAS) checklist. The incremental net benefit was calculated with monetary units adjusting for purchasing power parity for 2017 US dollars. This was then pooled across studies stratified by the country's level of income using a random-effect model if heterogeneity was present and with a fixed-effect model otherwise. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q test and I2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies with 22 comparisons, mainly from high-income countries, were eligible. Six and 4 studies compared SGLT2 with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) and sulfonylureas, respectively. The pooled incremental net benefits (95% confidence interval) for these corresponding comparisons were $164.95 (-$534.71 to $864.61; I2 = 0%) and $3675.09 ($1656.46-$5693.71; I2 = 85.4%), respectively. These results indicate that SGLT2s were cost-effective in comparison with sulfonylureas but not DPP4i. CONCLUSION: SGLT2s were cost-effective as compared with sulfonylureas but not DPP4i. Most of the evidence was from high-income countries with few comparative drug groups, and the results might not be representative of the actual global scenario. Further studies from middle and lower economies and other comparators are still required.