This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. Randomized controlled trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, where patients were receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline and at least one arm received treatment with remdesivir, were identified. Outcomes included mortality, recovery, and no longer requiring supplemental oxygen. NMAs were performed for low-flow oxygen (LFO2); high-flow oxygen (HFO2), including NIV (non-invasive ventilation); or oxygen at any flow (AnyO2) at early (day 14/15) and late (day 28/29) time points. Six studies were included (N = 5245 patients) in the NMA. Remdesivir lowered early and late mortality among AnyO2 patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.34–0.79; RR 0.81, 95%CrI 0.69–0.95) and LFO2 patients (RR 0.21, 95%CrI 0.09–0.46; RR 0.24, 95%CrI 0.11–0.48); no improvement was observed among HFO2 patients. Improved early and late recovery was observed among LFO2 patients (RR 1.22, 95%CrI 1.09–1.38; RR 1.17, 95%CrI 1.09–1.28). Remdesivir also lowered the requirement for oxygen support among all patient subgroups. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen at baseline, use of remdesivir compared to best supportive care is likely to improve the risk of mortality, recovery and need for oxygen support in AnyO2 and LFO2 patients.

Outreach, including patient navigation, has been shown to increase the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in underserved populations. This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) versus outreach, with or without a mailed annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), in a Medicaid population. A microsimulation model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY), direct costs, and clinical outcomes in a cohort of Medicaid beneficiaries aged 50–64 years, over a lifetime time horizon. The base case model explored scenarios of either 100% adherence or real-world reported adherence (51.3% for mt-sDNA, 21.1% for outreach with FIT and 12.3% for outreach without FIT) with or without real-world adherence for follow-up colonoscopy (66.7% for all). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0%. At 100% adherence to both screening tests and follow-up colonoscopy, mt-sDNA costed more and was less effective compared with outreach with or without FIT. When real-world adherence rates were considered for screening strategies (with 100% adherence for follow-up colonoscopy), mt-sDNA resulted in the greatest reduction in incidence and mortality from CRC (41.5% and 45.8%, respectively) compared with outreach with or without FIT; mt-sDNA also was cost-effective versus outreach with and without FIT ($32,150/QALY and $22,707/QALY, respectively). mt-sDNA remained cost-effective versus FIT, with or without outreach, under real-world adherence rates for follow-up colonoscopy. Outreach or navigation interventions, with associated real-world adherence rates to screening tests, should be considered when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies in underserved populations.

Aim: Multiple screening strategies are guideline-endorsed for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC). The impact of real-world adherence rates on the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stoolbased CRC screening strategies remains undefined.Methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Medicare as a primary payer used the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality Microsimulation Model (CRC-AIM) to estimate cost and clinical outcomes for triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA), annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening strategies in a simulated cohort of U.S. adults aged 65 years, who were assumed to either be previously unscreened or initiating screening upon entry to Medicare. Reported real-world adherence rates for initial stool-based screening and colonoscopy follow up (after a positive stool test result) were defined as 71.1% and 73.0% for mt-sDNA, 42.6% and 47.0% for FIT, and 33.4% and 47.0% for FOBT, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using qualityadjusted life years (QALY) was defined as the primary outcome of interest; other cost and clinical outcomes were also reported in secondary analyses. Multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.Results: When reported real-world adherence rates were included only for initial stool-based screening, mt-sDNA was cost-effective versus FIT ($62,814/QALY) and FOBT ($39,171/QALY); mt-sDNA also yielded improved clinical outcomes. When reported real-world adherence rates were included for both initial stool-based screening and follow-up colonoscopy (when A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t indicated), mt-sDNA was increasingly cost-effective compared to FIT and FOBT ($31,725/QALY and $28,465/QALY, respectively), with further improved clinical outcomes.Limitations: Results are based on real-world cross-sectional adherence rates and may vary in the context of other types of settings. Only guideline-recommended stool-based strategies were considered in this analysis. Conclusion:Comparisons of the effectiveness and benefits of specific CRC screening strategies should include both test-specific performance characteristics and real-world adherence to screening tests and, when indicated, follow-up colonoscopy.

Introduction In addition to significant morbidity and mortality, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has strained health care systems globally. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir + standard of care (SOC) for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the USA. Methods This cost-effectiveness analysis considered direct and indirect costs of remdesivir + SOC versus SOC alone among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US. Patients entered the model stratified according to their baseline ordinal score. At day 15, patients could transition to another health state, and on day 29, they were assumed to have either died or been discharged. Patients were then followed over a 1-year time horizon, where they could transition to death or be rehospitalized. Results Treatment with remdesivir + SOC avoided, per patient, a total of 4 hospitalization days: two general ward days and a day for both the intensive care unit and the intensive care unit plus invasive mechanical ventilation compared to SOC alone. Treatment with remdesivir + SOC presented net cost savings due to lower hospitalization and lost productivity costs compared to SOC alone. In increased and decreased hospital capacity scenarios, remdesivir + SOC resulted in more beds and ventilators being available versus SOC alone. Conclusions Remdesivir + SOC alone represents a cost-effective treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. This analysis can aid in future decisions on the allocation of healthcare resources. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-023-00816-y.

This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. Randomized controlled trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, where patients were receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline and at least one arm received treatment with remdesivir, were identified. Outcomes included mortality, recovery, and no longer requiring supplemental oxygen. NMAs were performed for low-flow oxygen (LFO2); high-flow oxygen (HFO2), including NIV; or oxygen at any flow (AnyO2) at early (day 14/15) and late (day 28/29) time points. Six studies were included (N=5,245 patients) in the NMA. Remdesivir lowered early and late mortality among AnyO2 patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.34-0.79; RR 0.81, 95%CrI 0.69-0.95) and LFO2 patients (RR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09-0.46; RR 0.24, 95%CI 0.11-0.48); no improvement was observed among HFO2 patients. Improved early and late recovery was observed among LFO2 patients (RR 1.22, 95%CrI 1.09-1.38; RR 1.17, 95%CrI 1.09-1.28). Remdesivir also lowered the requirement for oxygen support among all patient subgroups. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen at baseline, use of remdesivir compared to best supportive care is likely to improve the risk of mortality, recovery and need for oxygen support in AnyO2 and LFO2 patients.