Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36928779›Full record

ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2023

Economic Evaluation of Evusheld for Preexposure Prevention of COVID-19 in High-Risk Populations: Early Evidence from Thailand.

Waranya Rattanavipapong, Chittawan Poonsiri, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, Sopon Iamsirithaworn, Jutarat Apakupakul, Chaninan Sonthichai, Rungrueng Kitphati, Yot Teerawattananon

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Waranya RattanavipapongHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Programme, Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health, 6th Floor, 6th Building, Tiwanon Rd., Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Chittawan PoonsiriHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Programme, Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health, 6th Floor, 6th Building, Tiwanon Rd., Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand. chittawan.p@hitap.net.ORCID 0000-0003-2143-1662
Wanrudee IsaranuwatchaiHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Programme, Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health, 6th Floor, 6th Building, Tiwanon Rd., Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Sopon IamsirithawornDepartment of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Jutarat ApakupakulDepartment of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Chaninan SonthichaiDepartment of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Rungrueng KitphatiHealth Technical Office, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Yot TeerawattananonHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Programme, Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health, 6th Floor, 6th Building, Tiwanon Rd., Muang, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Ministry of Public Health · TH

Funding

Ministry of Public Health 65-006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe introduction of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines urged all Thais to seek prevention of serious illness and death from COVID-19. However, immunocompromised individuals might not be able to achieve an efficient immune response from these vaccines. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of introducing Evusheld (tixagevimab plus cilgavimab) for three patient groups-organ transplant, autoimmune disease, and dialysis patients, from the Thai government perspective.

methodsA Markov decision model was developed to compare the use of Evusheld plus COVID-19 vaccines versus COVID-19 vaccines alone. The methodology followed the National HTA Guidelines of Thailand. Model input parameters were collected locally from retrospective data and from a literature review.

resultsEvusheld helped prevent COVID-19 infection, severe infection, and death in all three patient groups. Using the Thai threshold of 160,000 Thai Baht (THB) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, the only scenario found to be cost-effective was that of dialysis patients with inadequate immune response, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 54,700 THB per QALY gained. To make a policy of Evusheld provision cost-effective in other groups, the price of Evusheld had to be lower (a reduction of 44-88% of its current price). The results of one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost-effectiveness of Evusheld was sensitive to changes in the rate of infection, cost and efficacy of Evusheld, proportion of inadequate immune responses, and the probability of moving from a 'recovered' to 'susceptible' status.

conclusionAmong three COVID-19-vaccinated immunocompromised patient populations, this study concluded that Evusheld was cost-effective for dialysis patients with inadequate immune response to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, NeutralizingCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CombinationsHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRetrospective StudiesThailandAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Neutralizingcilgavimab and tixagevimab drug combinationCOVID-19 VaccinesDrug Combinations

Identifiers

PMID36928779
PMCPMC10019402
OpenAlexW4327575323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.