Jo Youngji, Jamieson Lise, Edoka Ijeoma, Long Lawrence, Silal Sheetal, Pulliam Juliet R C, Moultrie Harry, Sanne Ian, Meyer-Rath Gesine, Nichols Brooke E
medRxiv. 2020 Sep 27:2020.09.24.20200196. doi: 10.1101/2020.09.24.20200196.
Background South Africa recently experienced a first peak in COVID-19 cases and mortality. Dexamethasone and remdesivir both have the potential to reduce COVID-related mortality, but their cost-effectiveness in a resource-limited setting with scant intensive care resources is unknown. Methods We projected intensive care unit (ICU) needs and capacity from August 2020 to January 2021 using the South African National COVID-19 Epi Model. We assessed cost-effectiveness of 1) administration of dexamethasone to ventilated patients and remdesivir to non-ventilated patients, 2) dexamethasone alone to both non-ventilated and ventilated patients, 3) remdesivir to non-ventilated patients only, and 4) dexamethasone to ventilated patients only; all relative to a scenario of standard care. We estimated costs from the healthcare system perspective in 2020 USD, deaths averted, and the incremental cost effectiveness ratios of each scenario. Results Remdesivir for non-ventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients was estimated to result in 1,111 deaths averted (assuming a 0-30% efficacy of remdesivir) compared to standard care, and save $11.5 million. The result was driven by the efficacy of the drugs, and the reduction of ICU-time required for patients treated with remdesivir. The scenario of dexamethasone alone to ventilated and non-ventilated patients requires additional $159,000 and averts 1,146 deaths, resulting in $139 per death averted, relative to standard care. Conclusions The use of dexamethasone for ventilated and remdesivir for non-ventilated patients is likely to be cost-saving compared to standard care. Given the economic and health benefits of both drugs, efforts to ensure access to these medications is paramount.
背景 南非近期经历了新冠疫情病例和死亡率的首个高峰。地塞米松和瑞德西韦都有可能降低新冠相关死亡率,但在重症监护资源稀缺的资源有限环境中,它们的成本效益尚不清楚。方法 我们使用南非国家新冠疫情流行病学模型预测了2020年8月至2021年1月期间重症监护病房(ICU)的需求和容量。我们评估了以下四种方案的成本效益:1)对使用呼吸机的患者使用地塞米松,对未使用呼吸机的患者使用瑞德西韦;2)对未使用呼吸机和使用呼吸机的患者均单独使用地塞米松;3)仅对未使用呼吸机的患者使用瑞德西韦;4)仅对使用呼吸机的患者使用地塞米松;所有方案均与标准治疗方案进行对比。我们从医疗系统角度估算了2020年美元成本、避免的死亡人数以及每种方案的增量成本效益比。结果 与标准治疗相比,估计对未使用呼吸机的患者使用瑞德西韦、对使用呼吸机的患者使用地塞米松可避免1111例死亡(假设瑞德西韦的疗效为0 - 30%),并节省1150万美元。这一结果是由药物疗效以及使用瑞德西韦治疗的患者所需ICU时间的减少所驱动的。与标准治疗相比,对使用呼吸机和未使用呼吸机的患者均单独使用地塞米松的方案需要额外花费15.9万美元,可避免1146例死亡,每避免一例死亡的成本为139美元。结论 与标准治疗相比,对使用呼吸机的患者使用地塞米松、对未使用呼吸机的患者使用瑞德西韦可能具有成本节约效果。鉴于这两种药物在经济和健康方面的益处,确保获取这些药物的努力至关重要。