Search

Introduction: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is approved in the United States (US) and more than 70 other countries for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in nonhospitalized adults at high risk for severe disease. Because ritonavir inhibits several drug metabolizing enzymes, potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between ritonavir and concomitant medications are an important consideration for prescribers. Here, we conducted a real-world analysis of data from Pfizer's global safety database regarding adverse events (AEs) reported during use of NMV/r concomitantly with potentially interacting drugs., Methods: Data were extracted regarding DDI cases occurring from the start of NMV/r authorization through October 31, 2023. Results regarding concomitant treatment, specific AEs, and clinical outcomes are summarized. Overall NMV/r exposure was estimated based on packs of medication dispensed and was used to calculate reporting rates., Results: Among 19,617,670 patients exposed globally to NMV/r, 966 cases of potential DDIs were reported. Of these, 594 occurred in the US against an estimated US exposure of 14,646,990 patients, representing a reporting rate of 0.004%. Globally and in the United States, 66.8% and 77.3% of cases, respectively, were nonserious. Simvastatin and tacrolimus were the most frequently reported drugs associated with potential DDIs, and the most frequently reported AE regarding a specific event or symptom was dysgeusia (altered sense of taste), an AE known to be associated with NMV/r., Conclusions: Low reporting rates of DDIs support the potential for NMV/r treatment to be safely managed with careful use of available drug interaction resources to aid in risk mitigation., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of Interest: All named authors are employees of Pfizer Inc and may hold stock or stock options. Ethical Approval: Ethics committee approval was not required. This article is based on a retrospective database review and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises testing individuals for COVID-19 after exposure or if they display symptoms. However, a deeper understanding of demographic factors associated with testing hesitancy is necessary., Methods: A US nationwide cross-sectional survey of adults with risk factors for developing severe COVID-19 ("high-risk" individuals) was conducted from August 18-September 5, 2023. Objectives included characterizing demographics and attitudes associated with COVID-19 testing. Inverse propensity weighting was used to weight the data to accurately reflect the high-risk adult US population as reflected in IQVIA medical claims data. We describe here the weighted results modeled to characterize demographic factors driving hesitancy., Results: In the weighted sample of 5019 respondents at high risk for severe COVID-19, 58.2% were female, 37.8% were ≥ 65 years old, 77.1% were White, and 13.9% had a postgraduate degree. Overall, 67% were Non-testers (who indicated that they were unlikely or unsure of their likelihood of being tested within the next 6 months); these respondents were significantly more likely than Testers (who indicated a higher probability of testing within 6 months) to be female (60.2 vs. 54.1%; odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.3 [1.1‒1.4]), aged ≥ 65 years old (41.5 vs. 30.3%; OR [95% CI] compared with ages 18‒34 years, 0.6 [0.5‒0.7]), White (82.1 vs. 66.8%; OR [95% CI], 1.4 [1.1‒1.8]), and to identify as politically conservative (40.9 vs. 18.1%; OR [95% CI], 2.6 [2.3‒2.9]). In contrast, Testers were significantly more likely than Non-testers to have previous experience with COVID-19 testing, infection, or vaccination; greater knowledge regarding COVID-19 and testing; greater healthcare engagement; and concerns about COVID-19., Conclusions: Older, female, White, rural-dwelling, and politically conservative high-risk adults are the most likely individuals to experience COVID-19 testing hesitancy. Understanding these demographic factors will help guide strategies to improve US testing rates., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an oral antiviral drug used to treat mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients aged 12 years or older at high risk of progression to severe disease (eg, hospitalization and death). Despite being the preferred option for outpatient treatment in the majority of countries worldwide, NMV/r is currently underutilized in real-world clinical practice., Areas of Uncertainty: As numerous real-world studies have described patient outcomes following treatment with NMV/r, this systematic literature review provides a comprehensive summary of evidence on NMV/r effectiveness against hospitalization and mortality further organized by clinically meaningful categories, such as acute versus longer-term follow-up, age, underlying health conditions, and vaccination status, to help inform health care decision making., Data Sources: We searched Embase and PubMed (December 22, 2021-March 31, 2023) and congress abstracts (December 1, 2021-December 31, 2022) for reports describing NMV/r effectiveness., Therapeutic Advances: In total, 18 real-world studies met final selection criteria. The evidence showed that NMV/r significantly reduced postinfection risk of all-cause and COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality in both acute (≤30 days) (21%-92%) and longer-term (>30 days) (1%-61%) follow-up. The reduction in postinfection risk was higher when treatment was received within 5 days of symptom onset. Real-world effectiveness of NMV/r treatment was observed regardless of age, underlying high-risk conditions, and vaccination status., Conclusion: The systematic literature review findings demonstrated the effectiveness of NMV/r against hospitalization and mortality during the Omicron period among individuals at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 disease., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Patients recovering from SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute COVID-19 illness can experience a range of long-term post-acute effects. The potential clinical and economic burden of these outcomes in the USA is unclear. We evaluated diagnoses, medications, healthcare utilization, and medical costs before and after acute COVID-19 illness in US patients who were not at high risk of severe COVID-19., Methods: This study included eligible adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from April 1 to May 31, 2020, who were 18 - 64 years of age, and enrolled within Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database for 12 months before and 13 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients with any condition or risk factor placing them at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 were excluded. Percentages of diagnoses, medications, healthcare utilization, and costs were calculated during baseline (12 months preceding diagnosis) and the post-acute phase (12 months after the 30-day acute phase of COVID-19). Data were stratified into 3 cohorts according to disposition during acute COVID-19 illness (i.e., not hospitalized, hospitalized without intensive care unit [ICU] admission, or admitted to the ICU)., Results: The study included 3792 patients; 56.5% of patients were men, 44% were White, and 94% did not require hospitalization. Compared with baseline, patients during the post-acute phase had percentage increases in the diagnosis of the following disorders: blood (166%), endocrine and metabolic (123%), nervous system (115%), digestive system (76%), and mental and behavioral (75%), along with increases in related prescriptions. Substantial increases in all measures of healthcare utilization were observed among all 3 cohorts. Total medical costs increased by 178% during the post-acute phase. Those who were hospitalized with or without ICU admission during the acute phase had the greatest increases in comorbidities and healthcare resource utilization. However, the burden was apparent across all cohorts., Conclusions: As evidenced by resource use in the post-acute phase, COVID-19 places a significant long-term clinical and economic burden among US individuals, even among patients whose acute infection did not merit hospitalization., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an orally administered antiviral indicated for the outpatient treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression to severe illness. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of NMV/r versus best supportive care for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe illness from a US health sector perspective., Methods: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using a short-term decision-tree (1 year) followed by a lifetime 2-state Markov model (alive and dead). The short-term decision-tree captured costs and outcomes associated with the primary infection and healthcare utilization; survivors of the short-term decision-tree were followed until death assuming US quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), adjusted in the short-term for survivors of mechanical ventilation. Baseline rate of hospitalization and NMV/r effectiveness were taken from an Omicron-era US real-world study. Remaining inputs were informed by previous COVID-19 studies and publicly available US sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for all model inputs to test the robustness of model results., Results: NMV/r was found to decrease COVID-19 related hospitalizations (-0.027 per infected case) increase QALYs (+0.030), decrease hospitalization costs (-$1110), and increase total treatment cost (+$271), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $8931/QALY. Results were most sensitive to baseline risk of hospitalization and NMV/r treatment effectiveness parameters. The probabilistic analysis indicated that NMV/r has a >99% probability of being cost-effective at a $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold., Conclusions: NMV/r is cost-effective vs best supportive care for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 from a US health sector perspective., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Links to the individual disclosure forms provided by the authors are available here., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Post-COVID conditions encompass a range of long-term symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The potential clinical and economic burden in the United States is unclear. We evaluated diagnoses, medications, healthcare use, and medical costs before and after acute COVID-19 illness in US patients at high risk of severe COVID-19., Methods: Eligible adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 from April 1 to May 31, 2020, had ≥ 1 condition placing them at risk of severe COVID-19, and were enrolled in Optum's de-identified Clinformatics ® Data Mart Database for ≥ 12 months before and ≥ 13 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Percentages of diagnoses, medications, resource use, and costs were calculated during baseline (12 months preceding diagnosis) and the post-acute phase (12 months after the 30-day acute phase of COVID-19). Data were stratified by age and COVID-19 severity., Results: The cohort included 19,558 patients (aged 18-64 y, n = 9381; aged ≥ 65 y, n = 10,177). Compared with baseline, patients during the post-acute phase had increased percentages of blood disorders (16.3%), nervous system disorders (11.1%), and mental and behavioral disorders (7.7%), along with increases in related prescriptions. Overall, there were substantial increases in inpatient and outpatient healthcare utilization, along with a 23.0% increase in medical costs. Changes were greatest among older patients and those admitted to the intensive care unit for acute COVID-19 but were also observed in younger patients and those who did not require COVID-19 hospitalization., Conclusions: There is a significant clinical and economic burden of post-COVID conditions among US individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is indicated for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. NMV/r has also been authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in pediatric patients (aged 226512 years and weighing at least 40 kg) who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Understanding the budget impact of introducing NMV/r for the treatment of adults with COVID-19 is of key interest to US payers., Objective: To estimate the annual budget impact of introducing NMV/r in a US commercial health plan setting in the current Omicron COVID-19 era., Methods: A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of NMV/r on health care costs in a hypothetical 1-million-member commercial health insurance plan over a 1-year period in the US population; clinical and cost inputs were derived from published literature with a focus on studies in the recent COVID-19 era that included vaccinated population and predominance of the Omicron variant. In the base-case analysis, it was assumed the only effect of NMV/r was a reduction in incidence (not severity) of hospitalization or death; its potential effect on post-COVID conditions was assessed in a scenario analysis. Outcomes included the number of hospitalizations, total cost, per patient per year (PPPY) costs, and per member per month (PMPM) costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs., Results: An estimated 29,999 adults were eligible and sought treatment with oral antiviral for COVID-19 over 1 year. The availability of NMV/r was estimated to reduce the number of hospitalizations by 647 with a total budget impact of $2,733,745, $91 PPPY, and $0.23 PMPM. NMV/r was cost saving when including post-COVID conditions with a -$1,510,780 total budget impact, a PPPY cost of -$50, and a PMPM cost of -$0.13. Sensitivity analyses indicated results were most sensitive to the risk of hospitalization under supportive care, risk of hospitalization with NMV/r treatment and cost of NMV/r., Conclusions: Treatment with NMV/r in the current COVID-19 era is estimated to result in substantial cost offsets because of reductions in hospitalization and modest budget impact to potential overall cost savings.

Nirmatrelvir (coadministered with ritonavir as PAXLOVID TM ) reduces the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalizations and all-cause death in individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk of progression to severe disease. Ritonavir is coadministered as a pharmacokinetic enhancer. However, ritonavir may cause drug-drug interactions (DDIs) due to its interactions with various drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters, including cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A, CYP2D6, and P-glycoprotein transporters. To better understand the extent of DDIs (or lack thereof) of nirmatrelvir; ritonavir in a clinical setting, this study used real-world evidence (RWE) from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database to identify the top 100 drugs most commonly prescribed to US patients at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 disease. The top 100 drugs were identified based on total counts associated with drugs prescribed to high-risk patients (i.e.,  ≥ 1 medical condition associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19) who were continuously enrolled in the database throughout 2019 and had  ≥ 1 prescription claim. Each of the 100 drugs was then assessed for DDI risk based on their metabolism, excretion, and transport pathways identified from available US prescribing and medical literature sources. Seventy drugs identified were not expected to have DDIs with nirmatrelvir; ritonavir, including many cardiovascular agents, anti-infectives, antidiabetic agents, and antidepressants. Conversely, 30 drugs, including corticosteroids, narcotic analgesics, anticoagulants, statins, and sedatives/hypnotics, were expected to cause DDIs with nirmatrelvir; ritonavir. This RWE analysis is complementary to the prescribing information and other DDI management tools for guiding healthcare providers in managing DDIs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Aims: To identify and synthesize evidence regarding how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions, including vaccines and outpatient treatments, have impacted healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs in the United States (US) during the Omicron era., Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify articles published between 1 January 2021 and 10 March 2023 that assessed the impact of vaccination and outpatient treatment on costs and HCRU outcomes associated with COVID-19. Screening was performed by two independent researchers using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria., Results: Fifty-eight unique studies were included in the SLR, of which all reported HCRU outcomes, and one reported costs. Overall, there was a significant reduction in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization for patients who received an original monovalent primary series vaccine plus booster dose vs. no vaccination. Moreover, receipt of a booster vaccine was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization vs. primary series vaccination. Evidence also indicated a significantly reduced risk of hospitalizations among recipients of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r), remdesivir, sotrovimab, and molnupiravir compared to non-recipients. Treated and/or vaccinated patients also experienced reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, and emergency department (ED)/urgent care clinic encounters., Limitations: The identified studies may not represent unique patient populations as many utilized the same regional/national data sources. Synthesis of the evidence was also limited by differences in populations, outcome definitions, and varying duration of follow-up across studies. Additionally, significant gaps, including HCRU associated with long COVID and various high-risk populations and cost data, were observed., Conclusions: Despite evidence gaps, findings from the SLR highlight the significant positive impact that vaccination and outpatient treatment have had on HCRU in the US, including periods of Omicron predominance. Continued research is needed to inform clinical and policy decision-making in the US as COVID-19 continues to evolve as an endemic disease.

Aims: This retrospective analysis of the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database evaluated US patient characteristics, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and treatment patterns among unvaccinated adults with outpatient-diagnosed COVID-19 to quantify US economic burden., Materials and Methods: The index event was the earliest outpatient diagnosis of confirmed COVID-19 from May 1 to December 10, 2020. Patients had 12 months' continuous enrollment before and were followed for ≥60 days after index date until insurance dis-enrollment or study end., Results: 236,589 patients had outpatient-diagnosed COVID-19 (7,692 with and 228,897 without subsequent COVID-19-related inpatient admission >48 h post-diagnosis). The median age was 51 years (≥65 years, 30.0%); 72.4% had ≥1 risk factor. Patients with versus without subsequent inpatient admission were more often male, older, Black/Hispanic, and had comorbidities/risk factors. With a median follow-up of 162 days, patients had a median of 1 COVID-19-related outpatient visit (with inpatient admission, 5 outpatient visits). Those with inpatient admission had a median of 1 COVID-19-related inpatient visit (median length of stay [LOS], 6 days), 33.3% were admitted to intensive care (median LOS, 8 days), 8.4%, 7.1%, and 13.3% received invasive mechanical ventilation, noninvasive mechanical ventilation, and supplemental oxygen, respectively; 13.5% experienced readmission. Inpatient mortality was 6.0% (0.3% for nonhospitalized patients). Antithrombotic therapy, antibiotics, corticosteroids, and remdesivir use increased among patients with inpatient admission versus without. Median total COVID-19-related non-zero medical costs were $208 for patients without inpatient admission (with inpatient admission, $39,187)., Limitations: Results reflect the circulating SARS-CoV-2 and treatment landscape during the study period. Requirements for continuous enrollment could have biased the population. Cost measurements may have included allowed (typically higher) and charge amounts., Conclusions: Given the numbers of the US population who are still not fully vaccinated and the evolving epidemiology of the pandemic, this study provides relevant insights on real-world treatment patterns, HCRU, and the cost burden of outpatient-diagnosed COVID-19.