ArticleClinical therapeutics2021
Cost-Effectiveness of Baricitinib Compared With Standard of Care: A Modeling Study in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in the United States.
Article in Clinical therapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of Emerging and Existing Pre-prophylaxis and Therapeutic Options for COVID-19 in Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Pooled it
- Lessons Learned from Model-based Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Drug Treatments Under Pandemic Circumstances: Results from a Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and control of COVID-19: Systematic review of 85 modelling studies.Journal of global health · 2022Pooled it
- Translational Success and Pharmacoeconomic Lessons of Pandemic-Driven Drug Repurposing.Cureus · 2025Review
- An evaluation of vilobelimab (anti-C5a) as a cost-effective option to treat severely ill mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2025Article
- Evidence of quality of life for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a scoping review.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Asymptomatic Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 Polymerase Chain Reaction Screening: A Cost-Utility Analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Baricitinib + SOC cost effective vs SOC for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the USA.PharmacoEconomics & outcomes news · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the Phase III COV-BARRIER (Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib for the Treatment of Hospitalised Adults With COVID-19) trial, treatment with baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, in addition to standard of care (SOC), was associated with significantly reduced mortality over 28 days in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), with a safety profile similar to that of SOC alone. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib + SOC versus SOC alone (which included systemic corticosteroids and remdesivir) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States.
methodsAn economic model was developed to simulate inpatients' stay, discharge to postacute care, and recovery. Costs modeled included payor costs, hospital costs, and indirect costs. Benefits modeled included life-years (LYs) gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, deaths avoided, and use of mechanical ventilation avoided. The primary analysis was performed from a payor perspective over a lifetime horizon; a secondary analysis was performed from a hospital perspective. The base-case analysis modeled the numeric differences in treatment effectiveness observed in the COV-BARRIER trial. Scenario analyses were also performed in which the clinical benefit of baricitinib was limited to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the trial.
findingsIn the base-case payor perspective model, an incremental total cost of 17,276 US dollars (USD), total QALYs gained of 0.6703, and total LYs gained of 0.837 were found with baricitinib + SOC compared with SOC alone. With the addition of baricitinib, survival was increased by 5.1% and the use of mechanical ventilation was reduced by 1.6%. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 25,774 USD/QALY gained and 20,638 USD/LY gained; a "mortality-only" scenario analysis yielded similar results of 26,862 USD/QALY gained and 21,433 USD/LY gained. From the hospital perspective, combination treatment with baricitinib + SOC was more effective and less costly than was SOC alone in the base case, with an incremental cost of 38,964 USD per death avoided in the mortality-only scenario. IMPLICATIONS: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, the addition of baricitinib to SOC was cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated from both the payor and the hospital perspectives. These findings were robust to sensitivity analysis and to conservative assumptions limiting the clinical benefits of baricitinib to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the COV-BARRIER trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.