Cost-effectiveness analysis of statins for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: A recent systematic review and meta-analysis reporting on thirteen published cohorts investigating 110,078 patients demonstrated that patients who were administered statins after their COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization were had a lower risk of mortality. While these findings are encouraging, given competing COVID-19 treatment approaches, it is unclear if statin use should be prioritized and if its use is a cost-effective treatment options for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In this study, we report on a cost-effectiveness analysis of statin-containing treatment regimens for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare statin use and no statin use among hospitalized COVID-19 patients from a United States healthcare perspective. The cycle length was one week, with a time horizon of 4 weeks. A Monte Carlo microsimulation with 20,000 samples were used. All analyses were conducted using TreeAge Pro Healthcare Version 2021 R1.1. RESULTS: The mean cost for patients receiving statins in addition to usual care was $31,623 (SD $20,331), whereas the mean cost for patients not receiving statins was $33,218 (SD $25,440). The mean effectiveness for the two cohorts were 1.73 (SD 0.96) and 1.71 (SD 1.00), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with statins was both cheaper and more effective than treatment without statins; statin-containing therapy dominates over non-statin therapy. Statin medications for the treatment of COVID-19 should be further investigated in randomized controlled trials, especially considering its cost-effective nature. Optimistically and pending the results of future randomized trials, statins should be considered for use broadly for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Medical Outcomes of Oncology Inpatients With and Without Chaplain Spiritual Care Visit: The Yale New Haven Hospital Experience.

PURPOSE: Although there exists some literature on the psychosocial elements of health between patients with and without spiritual care, less information is available on hospital health outcomes. Hence, we aimed to describe and compare health care utilization and outcomes among medical oncology patients who received and did not receive spiritual care consultation during inpatient admission. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of medical oncology patients admitted to Yale New Haven Hospital between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, to compare hospital outcomes between patients with and without spiritual care. RESULTS: Thirty-one thousand six hundred twenty-three patients were included, of whom 11,053 (35%) received a chaplain spiritual care visit and had a spiritual care note. Patients who received spiritual care were older and sicker. Readmission rates within 30 days were greater in the spiritual care group (OR = 1.07; P = .018). In addition, patients receiving spiritual care were at greater odds of increased length of stay (ß = 4.92; P < .0001), intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.98; P < .0001), hospital death (OR = 1.46; P < .0001), and emergency department visit within 30 days of discharge (OR = 1.17; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Patients who were older and sicker had greater spiritual care utilization than their younger and healthier counterparts. Spiritual care assessment of existential distress, complex grief, and faith-based support may be positively associated not only with patient care and quality of life but also with health care utilization and outcomes.

Colchicine use in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Colchicine may inhibit inflammasome signaling and reduce proinflammatory cytokines, a purported mechanism of COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to report on the state of the current literature on the use of colchicine in COVID-19 and to investigate the reported clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients by colchicine usage. METHODS: The literature was searched from January 2019 through January 28, 2021. References were screened to identify studies that reported the effect of colchicine usage on COVID-19 outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, or mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroup of trial design (RCT vs observational) and ICU status. Studies reporting an risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Eight studies, reporting on 16,248 patients, were included in this review. The Recovery trial reported equivalent mortality between colchicine and non-colchicine users. Across the other studies, patients who received colchicine had a lower risk of mortality-HR of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.66) and OR of 0.22 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.57). There was no statistical difference in risk of ICU admissions between patients with COVID-19 who received colchicine and those who did not-OR of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.06, 1.09). CONCLUSION: Colchicine may reduce the risk of mortality in individuals with COVID-19. Further prospective investigation may further determine the efficacy of colchicine as treatment in COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease, including post-hospitalization and long-term care.

Effect of famotidine on hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated. RESULTS: Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death-HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%. CONCLUSION: Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.

The protective association between statins use and adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Statins may reduce a cytokine storm, which has been hypothesized as a possible mechanism of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report on adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients by statin usage. METHODS: Literatures were searched from January 2019 to December 2020 to identify studies that reported the association between statin usage and adverse outcomes, including mortality, ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation. Studies were meta-analyzed for mortality by the subgroups of ICU status and statin usage before and after COVID-19 hospitalization. Studies reporting an odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Thirteen cohorts, reporting on 110,078 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Individuals who used statins before their COVID-19 hospitalization showed a similar risk of mortality, compared to those who did not use statins (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.28; OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38, 1.03). Patients who were administered statins after their COVID-19 diagnosis were at a lower risk of mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.61; OR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.75). The use of statins did not reduce the mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU (OR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.64). Among non-ICU patients, statin users were at a lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users (HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.62; OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.88). CONCLUSION: Patients administered statins after COVID-19 diagnosis or non-ICU admitted patients were at lower risk of mortality relative to non-statin users.