Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38727991›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2024

Lessons Learned from Model-based Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Drug Treatments Under Pandemic Circumstances: Results from a Systematic Review.

Clazinus Veijer, Marinus H van Hulst, Benjamin Friedrichson, Maarten J Postma, Antoinette D I van Asselt

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Cost-effectiveness of testing biofluid biomarkers to diagnose Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. 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

5 authors.

Clazinus VeijerDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. c.veijer@umcg.nl.ORCID 0009-0000-9785-945X
Marinus H van HulstDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3216-7246
Benjamin FriedrichsonDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Therapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3790-281X
Maarten J PostmaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6306-3653
Antoinette D I van AsseltDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7705-9906

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE Health 101045956 - COVend - HORIZON-HLTH-2021-CORONA-01 - 11/11/2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing clinical research of potential coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments, numerous decision-analytic models have been developed. Due to pandemic circumstances, clinical evidence was limited and modelling choices were made under great uncertainty. This study aimed to analyse key methodological characteristics of model-based economic evaluations of COVID-19 drug treatments, and specifically focused on modelling choices which pertain to disease severity levels during hospitalisation, model structure, sources of effectiveness and quality of life and long-term sequelae.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review and searched key databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus) for original articles on model-based full economic evaluations of COVID-19 drug treatments. Studies focussing on vaccines, diagnostic techniques and non-pharmaceutical interventions were excluded. The search was last rerun on 22 July 2023. Results were narratively synthesised in tabular form. Several aspects were categorised into rubrics to enable comparison across studies.

resultsOf the 1047 records identified, 27 were included, and 23 studies (85.2%) differentiated patients by disease severity in the hospitalisation phase. Patients were differentiated by type of respiratory support, level of care management, a combination of both or symptoms. A Markov model was applied in 16 studies (59.3%), whether or not preceded by a decision tree or an epidemiological model. Most cost-utility analyses lacked the incorporation of COVID-19-specific health utility values. Of ten studies with a lifetime horizon, seven adjusted general population estimates to account for long-term sequelae (i.e. mortality, quality of life and costs), lasting for 1 year, 5 years, or a patient's lifetime. The most often reported parameter influencing the outcome of the analysis was related to treatment effectiveness.

conclusionThe results illustrate the variety in modelling approaches of COVID-19 drug treatments and address the need for a more standardized approach in model-based economic evaluations of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRY: Protocol registered in PROSPERO under CRD42023407646.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisCOVID-19COVID-19 Drug TreatmentModels, EconomicAntiviral AgentsDecision Support TechniquesHospitalizationHumansPandemicsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeSeverity of Illness IndexAntiviral Agents

Identifiers

PMID38727991
PMCPMC11126513

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.