Search

Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) and ring vaccination (i.e., vaccination that primarily targets contacts and contacts of contacts of Ebola cases) are currently used to reduce the spread of Ebola during outbreaks. Because these measures are typically initiated after an outbreak is declared, they are limited by real-time implementation challenges. Preventive vaccination may provide a complementary option to help protect communities against unpredictable outbreaks. This study aimed to assess the impact of preventive vaccination strategies when implemented in conjunction with NPI and ring vaccination.A spatial-explicit, individual-based model (IBM) that accounts for heterogeneity of human contact, human movement, and timing of interventions was built to represent Ebola transmission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Simulated preventive vaccination strategies targeted healthcare workers (HCW), frontline workers (FW), and the general population (GP) with varying levels of coverage (lower coverage: 30% of HCW/FW, 5% of GP; higher coverage: 60% of HCW/FW, 10% of GP) and efficacy (lower efficacy: 60%; higher efficacy: 90%).The IBM estimated that the addition of preventive vaccination for HCW reduced cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by ∼11 % to ∼25 % compared with NPI + ring vaccination alone. Including HCW and FW in the preventive vaccination campaign yielded ∼14 % to ∼38 % improvements in epidemic outcomes. Further including the GP yielded the greatest improvements, with ∼21 % to ∼52 % reductions in epidemic outcomes compared with NPI + ring vaccination alone. In a scenario without ring vaccination, preventive vaccination reduced cases, hospitalizations, and deaths by ∼28 % to ∼59 % compared with NPI alone. In all scenarios, preventive vaccination reduced Ebola transmission particularly during the initial phases of the epidemic, resulting in flatter epidemic curves.The IBM showed that preventive vaccination may reduce Ebola cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, thus safeguarding the healthcare system and providing more time to implement additional interventions during an outbreak.

Ibalizumab-uiyk (ibalizumab) is a first-in-class, long-acting, postattachment HIV-1 inhibitor for adults with multidrug-resistant (MDR) HIV-1 infection. This analysis examines the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of ibalizumab treatment for this difficult-to-treat population in the United States.A Markov model followed cohorts of adults with MDR HIV-1 infection through two final lines of antiretroviral therapy: ibalizumab + optimized background therapy (OBT) or OBT alone followed by nonsuppressive therapy. Model inputs were based on ibalizumab clinical trial data, market uptake projections, and published literature, with costs in 2019 dollars. The cost-effectiveness analysis assessed costs and health outcomes from a health care sector perspective for individuals receiving ibalizumab + OBT versus OBT alone over a lifetime time horizon. The budget-impact analysis estimated the impact on payer budgets of the introduction of ibalizumab over 3 years for a hypothetical commercial health plan.Compared with individuals receiving OBT alone, individuals receiving ibalizumab + OBT incurred higher costs but lived longer, healthier lives, with an incremental cost of $133,040 per QALY gained. For a hypothetical commercial health plan with 1 million members, the introduction of ibalizumab + OBT was estimated to increase budgets by $217,260, $385,245, and $560,310 ($0.018, $0.032, and $0.047 per member per month) in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These results were found to be robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses.Ibalizumab may represent a cost-effective and affordable option to improve health outcomes for individuals with MDR HIV-1 infection.

GESIDA (AIDS Study Group) has proposed preferred regimens of antiretroviral treatment as initial therapy in HIV infected patients. The objective of this analysis is to compare the costs and effectiveness of darunavir/r QD and other ritonavir-boosted (/r) protease inhibitors (PIs) currently recommended in GESIDA guidelines for treatment-naïve patients.A cost-efficacy model compared the boosted PIs recommended as preferred or alternative treatment choices, each used with a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Efficacy was measured by 48-week virological response (viral load 50 copies/mL) adjusted by baseline viral load and CD4 cell count. To generate efficiency frontiers and cost-efficacy ratios, one-year antiretroviral therapy costs in Spain, and 48-week efficacy values were used.The model estimated that starting treatment with darunavir/r QD was the most cost-effective choice compared with the other preferred PI/r based therapies. The average cost per patient with a virological response was lower for darunavir/r QD (13,420€) than for atazanavir/r QD (14,000€), or lopinavir/r BID (13,815€). Among the preferred PI/r-based therapies, darunavir/r QD also was estimated to be the most efficient option for treatment-naïve patients. Atazanavir/r QD and lopinavir/r BID were found to be «dominated» by darunavir/r) and, consequently, were outside the efficiency frontier of PI/r-based first-line treatment. Given a fixed budget of 10 million euros for PI/r-based first-line therapy, the model estimated that darunavir/r QD would yield more responders (745) than atazanavir/r QD (714), or lopinavir/r BID (724). At the same time, darunavir/r QD would reduce the number of individuals failing treatment (150) compared with atazanavir/r QD (172) and lopinavir/r BID (286).In this model, darunavir/r QD was found to be the most cost-effective choice, among the preferred PI/r-based therapies recommended in the Spanish guidelines for treatment-naïve patients.

Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with oseltamivir (Tamiflu) has been shown to be effective and is approved in children exposed to a case of influenza in a household setting. Given limited healthcare budgets, it is important to understand the costs and cost effectiveness of PEP in children.This study aims to estimate the cost effectiveness of oseltamivir PEP for children aged 1-12 years in the U.S.A decision-tree model with a 1-year time horizon was used to assess the cost effectiveness of oseltamivir PEP for 10 days at approved doses compared with no prophylaxis for children aged 1-12 years who were exposed to a household index case of influenza from the U.S. societal and payer perspectives. Model inputs included U.S. influenza epidemiology data, efficacy data from oseltamivir PEP clinical trials, direct medical resource use and costs for PEP and influenza treatment derived from large U.S. databases, and indirect costs based on caregiver lost productivity. Base-case estimates were tested in extensive sensitivity analyses.For the societal perspective, the model estimated 12,184 fewer cases of influenza per 100,000 children exposed and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $41,452 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results were most sensitive to the influenza attack rate, PEP protective efficacy, and prescribing patterns for initiating PEP. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that oseltamivir PEP was likely to be cost effective for all willingness-to-pay threshold values above $34,300 per QALY gained. Results were similar for the payer perspective.Although there is no official cost-effectiveness threshold in the U.S., results from the current study show that when compared with no prophylaxis, oseltamivir PEP for children has cost-effectiveness ratios similar to those of vaccines for preventing influenza.