Increased complement activation is observed in COVID-19 compared with non-COVID respiratory illness and is a key marker of organ failure.

Thrombotic complications occur at high rates in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, yet the impact of intensive antithrombotic therapy on mortality is uncertain. We examined in‐hospital mortality with intermediate‐ compared to prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation, and separately with in‐hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy, in a large, retrospective study of 2785 hospitalized adult COVID‐19 patients. In this analysis, we established two separate, nested cohorts of patients (a) who received intermediate‐ or prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation (“anticoagulation cohort”, N = 1624), or (b) who were not on home antiplatelet therapy and received either in‐hospital aspirin or no antiplatelet therapy (“aspirin cohort”, N = 1956). To minimize bias and adjust for confounding factors, we incorporated propensity score matching and multivariable regression utilizing various markers of illness severity and other patient‐specific covariates, yielding treatment groups with well‐balanced covariates in each cohort. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of in‐hospital death. Among propensity score‐matched patients in the anticoagulation cohort (N = 382), in a multivariable regression model, intermediate‐ compared to prophylactic‐dose anticoagulation was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in‐hospital death (hazard ratio 0.518 [0.308–0.872]). Among propensity‐score matched patients in the aspirin cohort (N = 638), in a multivariable regression model, in‐hospital aspirin compared to no antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of in‐hospital death (hazard ratio 0.522 [0.336–0.812]). In this propensity score‐matched, observational study of COVID‐19, intermediate‐dose anticoagulation and aspirin were each associated with a lower cumulative incidence of in‐hospital death.

Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a life-threatening disease characterized by thrombotic microangiopathy leading to end-organ damage. The standard of care (SOC) treatment is therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) alongside immunomodulation with steroids, with increasing use of rituximab ± other immunomodulatory agents. The addition of caplacizumab, a nanobody targeting von Willebrand factor, was shown to accelerate platelet count recovery and reduce TPE treatments and hospital length of stay in TTP patients treated in 2 major randomized clinical trials. The addition of caplacizumab to SOC also led to increased bleeding from transient reductions in von Willebrand factor and increased relapse rates. Using data from the 2 clinical trials of caplacizumab, we performed the first-ever cost-effectiveness analysis in TTP. Over a 5-year period, the projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in our Markov model was $1 482 260, significantly above the accepted 2019 US willingness-to-pay threshold of $195 300. One-way sensitivity analyses showed the utility of the well state and the cost of caplacizumab to have the largest effects on ICER, with a reduction in caplacizumab cost demonstrating the single greatest impact on lowering the ICER. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SOC was favored over caplacizumab in 100% of 10 000 iterations. Our data indicate that the addition of caplacizumab to SOC in treatment of acquired TTP is not cost effective because of the high cost of the medication and its failure to improve relapse rates. The potential impact of caplacizumab on health system cost using longer term follow-up data merits further study.

Gene therapy is a potential cure for sickle cell disease (SCD). Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) does not capture the effects of treatments on disparities in SCD, but distributional CEA (DCEA) uses equity weights to incorporate these considerations. To compare gene therapy versus standard of care (SOC) in patients with SCD by using conventional CEA and DCEA. Markov model. Claims data and other published sources. Birth cohort of patients with SCD. Lifetime. U.S. health system. Gene therapy at age 12 years versus SOC. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (in dollars per quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained) and threshold inequality aversion parameter (equity weight). Gene therapy versus SOC for females yielded 25.5 versus 15.7 (males: 24.4 vs. 15.5) discounted lifetime QALYs at costs of $2.8 million and $1.0 million (males: $2.8 million and $1.2 million), respectively, with an ICER of $176 000 per QALY (full SCD population). The inequality aversion parameter would need to be 0.90 for the full SCD population for gene therapy to be preferred per DCEA standards. SOC was favored in 100.0% (females) and 87.1% (males) of 10 000 probabilistic iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Gene therapy would need to cost less than $1.79 million to meet conventional CEA standards. Benchmark equity weights (as opposed to SCD-specific weights) were used to interpret DCEA results. Gene therapy is cost-ineffective per conventional CEA standards but can be an equitable therapeutic strategy for persons living with SCD in the United States per DCEA standards. Yale Bernard G. Forget Scholars Program and Bunker Endowment.