Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point of care tests for routine testing in residential care homes: rapid cost-effectiveness analysis

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which at the time of writing (January 2021) was responsible for more than 2.25 million deaths worldwide and over 100,000 deaths in the UK. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in residential care homes. Objective The work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests in the setting of a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. Perspective/setting The perspective was that of the NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical care home facility for elderly residents. Care homes with en suite rooms and with shared facilities were modelled separately. Methods A discrete event simulation model was constructed to model individual residents and simulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 once it had entered the residential care facility. The numbers of COVID-19-related deaths and critical cases were recorded in addition to the number of days spent in isolation. Thirteen strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests and for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Scenario analyses modelled early release from isolation based on receipt of a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and the impact of vaccination. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits. Results Cost-effectiveness results depended on the proportion of residential care facilities penetrated by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with desirable target product profiles appear to have high net monetary benefit values. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests with acceptable target product profiles had low net monetary benefit values because of unnecessary isolations. The benefit of allowing early release from isolation depended on whether or not the facility had en suite rooms. The greater the assumed efficacy of vaccination, the lower the net monetary benefit values associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, when assuming that a vaccine lowers the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. Limitations There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. Some degree of Monte Carlo sampling error persists because of the timelines of the project. The example care home simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly the cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests have considerable potential for benefit for use in residential care facilities, but whether or not this materialises depends on the diagnostic accuracy and costs of forthcoming SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Future work More accurate results would be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of and the reduction in time to test result associated with SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests when used in the context of residential care facilities, the proportion of care home penetrated by SARS-CoV-2 and the levels of immunity once vaccination is administered. These parameters are currently uncertain. Funding This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme as project number 132154. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Modelling of hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests on admission to hospital from A&E : rapid cost-effectiveness analysis

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. At the time of writing (October 2020), the number of cases of COVID-19 had been approaching 38 million and more than 1 million deaths were attributable to it. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be highly transmissible and could rapidly spread in hospital wards. Objective The work undertaken aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of viral detection point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with laboratory-based tests. A further objective was to assess occupancy levels in hospital areas, such as waiting bays, before allocation to an appropriate bay. Perspective/setting The perspective was that of the UK NHS in 2020. The setting was a hypothetical hospital with an accident and emergency department. Methods An individual patient model was constructed that simulated the spread of disease and mortality within the hospital and recorded occupancy levels. Thirty-two strategies involving different hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 tests were modelled. Recently published desirable and acceptable target product profiles for SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests were modelled. Incremental analyses were undertaken using both incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits, and key patient outcomes, such as death and intensive care unit care, caused directly by COVID-19 were recorded. Results A SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test with a desirable target product profile appears to have a relatively small number of infections, a low occupancy level within the waiting bays, and a high net monetary benefit. However, if hospital laboratory testing can produce results in 6 hours, then the benefits of point-of-care tests may be reduced. The acceptable target product profiles performed less well and had lower net monetary benefits than both a laboratory-based test with a 24-hour turnaround time and strategies using data from currently available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. The desirable and acceptable point-of-care test target product profiles had lower requirement for patients to be in waiting bays before being allocated to an appropriate bay than laboratory-based tests, which may be of high importance in some hospitals. Tests that appeared more cost-effective also had better patient outcomes. Limitations There is considerable uncertainty in the values for key parameters within the model, although calibration was undertaken in an attempt to mitigate this. The example hospital simulated will also not match those of decision-makers deciding on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of introducing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests. Given these limitations, the results should be taken as indicative rather than definitive, particularly cost-effectiveness results when the relative cost per SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test is uncertain. Conclusions Should a SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test with a desirable target product profile become available, this appears promising, particularly when the reduction on the requirements for waiting bays before allocation to a SARS-CoV-2-infected bay, or a non-SARS-CoV-2-infected bay, is considered. The results produced should be informative to decision-makers who can identify the results most pertinent to their specific circumstances. Future work More accurate results could be obtained when there is more certainty on the diagnostic accuracy of, and the reduction in time to test result associated with, SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care tests, and on the impact of these tests on occupancy of waiting bays and isolation bays. These parameters are currently uncertain

Antimicrobial effect of Chitosan and Nano-Chitosan against some Pathogens and Spoilage Microorganisms

An experiment was conducted to investigate the antimicrobial effect of chitosan and nano-chitosan. Two Gram-negative, three Gram-positive bacteria and three fungal strains were used as test microorganisms. The obtained results indicated that 88% of nano-chitosan particle size was in the range of 93.76nm and 12% in 405nm. Nano-chitosan showed maximum antibacterial activity against S. aureus and L. monocytogenes with inhibition zone of 30mm (23µg/ml concentration) and the lowest 23mm with E. coli at the same concentration. Other tested bacteria were affected in different degrees. The MIC and MLC ranged between 64 to 256 and 128 to 512µg/ml, respectively. The highest effect was against S. aureus at 23.04µg/ml. Chitosan solution was found to have less antifungal activity against C. albicans when compared to nano-chitosan. MIC and MLC for chitosan and nano-chitosan were recorded at 64 and 128µg/ml with chitosan and 23.04 and 46.08µg/ml with nano-chitosan. The highest nano-chitosan activity was recorded against S. cerevisiae, 7 and 16µg/ml for MIC and MLC, respectively. Nano-chitosan at concentrations 3.0 and 4.5µg/ml were the most effective to retard fungal activity

Neurodevelopmental abnormalities in children with PHACE syndrome.

Prior case reports have identified neurodevelopmental abnormalities in children with PHACE syndrome, a neurocutaneous disorder first characterized in 1996. In this multicenter, retrospective study of a previously identified cohort of 93 children diagnosed with PHACE syndrome from 1999 to 2010, 29 children had neurologic evaluations at ≥ 1 year of age (median age: 4 years, 2 months). In all, 44% had language delay, 36% gross motor delay, and 8% fine motor delay; 52% had an abnormal neurological exam, with speech abnormalities as the most common finding. Overall, 20 of 29 (69%) had neurodevelopmental abnormalities. Cerebral, but not posterior fossa, structural abnormalities were identified more often in children with abnormal versus normal neurodevelopmental outcomes (35% vs. 0%, P = .04). Neurodevelopmental abnormalities in young children with PHACE syndrome referred to neurologists include language and gross motor delay, while fine motor delay is less frequent. Prospective studies are needed to understand long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019. Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation. Setting Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings. Methods Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee. Results The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified. Conclusions The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical – and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies. Future work Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Stroke in children with posterior fossa brain malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, coarctation of the aorta and cardiac defects, and eye abnormalities (PHACE) syndrome: a systematic review of the literature.

Background and purposePHACE is an acronym for posterior fossa brain malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, coarctation of the aorta and cardiac defects, and eye abnormalities. Several case reports of arterial ischemic stroke (AIS) in individuals with PHACE have been published, but risk factors for AIS in PHACE have not been clearly defined. The objective of this article is to review all cases of stroke in PHACE in children and describe clinical characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of AIS.MethodsA literature and registry search was conducted to identify patients with PHACE who had experienced AIS. Data were analyzed to determine age of onset, presenting signs and symptoms, and clinical features among this cohort compared with PHACE without AIS.ResultsTwenty-two individuals with PHACE and AIS were identified. Imaging of the arteries of the head and neck was reported in 20 of 22. Narrowing or nonvisualization of at least 1 great cerebral vessel was present in 19 of 20 and of those, 15 had ≥ 2 vessels involved. Aortic arch anomalies were reported in 13 of 22 individuals.ConclusionsAplasia, hypoplasia, or occlusion of a major cerebral artery appears to be a significant risk factor for AIS in children with PHACE, especially when >1 vessel is involved or if there is coarctation of the aorta

Cost effectiveness of ranibizumab vs aflibercept vs bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO study

Background We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis), aflibercept (Eylea) and bevacizumab (Avastin) for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. Methods We calculated costs and quality-adjusted life-years from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. We performed a within-trial analysis using the efficacy, safety, resource use and health utility data from a randomised controlled trial (LEAVO) over 100 weeks. We built a discrete event simulation to model long-term outcomes. We estimated utilities using the Visual-Functioning Questionnaire-Utility Index, EQ-5D and EQ-5D with an additional vision question. We used standard UK costs sources for 2018/19 and a cost of £28 per bevacizumab injection. We discounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years at 3.5% annually. Results Bevacizumab was the least costly intervention followed by ranibizumab and aflibercept in both the within-trial analysis (bevacizumab: £6292, ranibizumab: £13,014, aflibercept: £14,328) and long-term model (bevacizumab: £18,353, ranibizumab: £30,226, aflibercept: £35,026). Although LEAVO did not demonstrate bevacizumab to be non-inferior for the visual acuity primary outcome, the three interventions generated similar quality-adjusted life-years in both analyses. Bevacizumab was always the most cost-effective intervention at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, even using the list price of £243 per injection. Conclusions Wider adoption of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion could result in substantial savings to healthcare systems and deliver similar health-related quality of life. However, patients, funders and ophthalmologists should be fully aware that LEAVO could not demonstrate that bevacizumab is non-inferior to the licensed agents