Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG) in Treating Non-ventilated COVID-19 Patients with Moderate to Severe Hypoxia is Pharmacoeconomically Favorable When Appropriately Targeted

Introduction

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has been available in most hospitals for 4 decades with broad therapeutic applications in the treatment of a variety of inflammatory, infectious, autoimmune, viral diseases, and Kawasaki disease via multifactorial mechanisms of immune modulation. Retrospective studies have shown potential benefit of IVIG treatment for COVID-19 ARDS in adults and the associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).^1-7 The benefit of IVIG may be more based on earlier timing of administration rather than on dose.² Detailed case series have also been recently published with sufficient clinical granularity in their presentation to point to individual patient cases where very obvious benefit was seen.⁸

Three prospective randomized studies evaluating IVIG in COVID-19 were recently published. A randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study of 59 patients (30 IVIG, 29 placebo) was performed in Iran between May-June 2020.⁹ Multivariate logistic regression showed lack of IVIG receipt, along with increasing age, lower diastolic blood pressure and increased serum lactate dehydrogenase were associated with higher mortality. A second study at two hospitals in San Diego, CA (USA) was an open label randomized prospective study of 33 COVID-19 patients (16 IVIG, 17 controls) comparing standard of care (n=17) vs. standard of care plus IVIG 0.5g/kg daily x 3 days and showed a lower rate of progression to respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients (13%, 2/16 with IVIG vs. 41%, 7/17 without IVIG, p=0.12).¹⁰ While this difference did not achieve statistical significance among the collective subject cohorts, a post-hoc analysis of patients with A-a gradient >200 mm Hg showed statistically significant reduction in progression to mechanical ventilation, shorter duration length in the ICU and total hospital stay and improvement in oxygenation (PaO 2 /FiO 2) at day 7. A third study from India administering 0.4 g/kg daily x 5 days in a randomized prospective open label format (50 IVIG, 50 controls) showed a significant reduction in hospital stay (8 vs 18 days) among IVIG recipients.¹¹

Despite these positive results, the relatively high costs of IVIG makes its pharmacoeconomic value uncertain. Therefore, we performed an analysis of healthcare costs of hypoxic COVID-19 treated patients with IVIG compared to COVID-19 patients not given IVIG.

Methods

Results

Case-Control Analysis: A total of 10 COVID-19 hypoxic patients received Privigen IVIG outside of clinical trial settings. Oxygen requirement within the first 48 hours ranged from 3L via nasal cannula to requiring bi-level positive pressure airway (BiPAP) with 100% oxygen, median age was 56 and median Charlson comorbidity index was 1. These 10 patients were matched to 2 control patients based on oxygen requirements who did not receive IVIG, yielding 20 patients with median age 58.5 years, Charlson comorbidity index of 1 (Table 1).

The mean (standard deviation, SD) total direct hospital cost per case, including IVIG and other drug cost, for the 10 IVIG-treated COVID-19 patients was $21,982 (4,734). For the control patients, direct hospital cost per case was $42,431 (48,158), a difference of $20,449 per case (p=0.6187). Thus, the mean IVIG hospital cost per case was reduced 48% compared to the matched control case cost. This difference was heavily driven by 4 control patients (20%) with hospital costs >$100,000, marked by need for ICU transfer, mechanical ventilation, and longer hospital stays. All four of these patients required ventilation during their admission. This mitigation of progression to mechanical ventilation was consistent with our previously published open-label randomized prospective IVIG, the financial assessment of which is reviewed below. While total direct cost was lower in the treatment arm, the mean drug cost for the treatment arm was $3,121.97 greater than the mean drug cost in the control arm (p=0.001622), consistent with the high cost of IVIG therapy (Table 2).

LOS information was obtained as this was thought to be a primary driver of direct costs. The average LOS in the IVIG arm was 8.4 days while the average LOS in the control arm was 13.6 days. An average difference of 5.2 days was noted between groups (p = 0.5884). The average ICU LOS in the IVIG arm was 0 days while the average ICU LOS in the control arm was 5.3 days. An average difference of 5.3 days was noted between groups (p = 0.04057). As with the differences in cost, the differences in LOS was primarily driven by the four outlier cases in our control arm, who each had a LOS >25 days, as well as an ICU LOS >20 days.

Randomized Open-Label Patient Cohort: Patient characteristics, length of stay, and receipt of mechanical ventilation for the IVIG and control patients were previously published and showed reduction in mechanical ventilation and hospital LOS with IVIG.¹⁰ Comparing the hospital cost of the IVIG patients to the control patients from this trial revealed similar results to the matched case-control analysis discussed above. Mean (SD) total direct cost, including IVIG, for the treatment group was $28,268 (19,449) per case versus $62,707 (113,563) per case for untreated controls. This represented a net cost reduction of $34,439 per case, or a 55% cost reduction per case.

Combining the case-control and the randomized trial groups, yielding 23 IVIG and 34 control patients, showed median cost per case of $22,578 (range $10,115-$70,929) and $22,645 (range $4723-$279,797) for the IVIG and control groups, respectively. Cases with cost >$80,000 were 0/23 (0%) versus 8/34 (24%) in the IVIG and control groups, respectively (p=0.016, Fisher Exact test).

Improving care while simultaneously keeping care costs below reimbursement payments received from third party payers is paramount to the financial survival of healthcare systems. IVIG appears to do this by reducing costs through reduction in progression of COVID-19 to requiring ICU care. Reimbursement amounts will vary depending on third-party payers as well as illness acuity. We compared the costs of care of our combined case-control and randomized trial cohorts to published data on average reimbursements hospitals receive for COVID-19 care from Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance.¹² The results are displayed graphically in the Figure. IVIG demonstrated reduction in cases where costs exceed reimbursement.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure Legend

Costs of IVIG and control COVID-19 cases with respect to average reimbursement by Medicaid (solid line, bottom), Medicare (dashed line, middle), and commercial insurance (dotted line, top) obtained from reference 12.

Discussion

Supported by published literature,¹³ our hospital had been utilizing IVIG in the treatment of viral acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with anecdotal success prior to COVID-19. Therefore, our group moved quickly to perform a randomized open-label pilot study of IVIG (octagam-10%) in COVID-19, and noted significant clinical benefit that might translate into hospital cost savings.¹⁰ Over the course of the pandemic, evidence has accumulated that IVIG may play an important role in COVID-19 therapeutics, as summarized in a recent review.¹⁴ However, despite these results, the relatively high acquisition costs of IVIG raised questions as to its pharmacoeconomic value, particularly with such a high volume of COVID-19 patients with hypoxia in light of limited clinical data.

Indeed, a year and a half into the pandemic, COVID-19 therapeutics data can be summarized into either high-quality trials showing marginal benefit for some agents or low-quality trials showing greater benefit for other agents, with IVIG studies falling into the latter category.¹⁵ This phenomenon may speak to pathophysiological heterogeneity of the COVID-19 patient population. High quality trials lack the granularity to capture and single out relevant patient subsets of maximal therapeutic benefit, with those subsets diluted out by other patient types for which no benefit is seen. Meanwhile, the more granular low quality trials are criticized as underpowered and lacking general translatability to practice. Furthermore, the lower quality trials are inclusive of some of subsequently refuted data that unfortunately have been embraced by politically-driven pandemic quackery, potentially working against the unbiased interpretation of data from other small trials that may actually be meaningful.

Positive results from our pilot trial resulted in off-label utilization of IVIG (Privigen) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients restricted to specific criteria. Patients had to be moderately to severely ill requiring >3 liters nasal cannula, show high risk of clinical deterioration based on respiratory rate and decline in respiratory status, and with underlying comorbidities (eg. hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus). However, older patients (>age 70) and those underlying comorbidities marked by organ failure (eg. heart failure, renal failure, dementia, receipt of organ transplant) and active malignancy, were excluded as their clinical outcome in COVID-19 may be considered less modifiable by therapeutics, while simultaneously carrying potentially higher risk of adverse events from IVIG (eg. volume overload). This patient restriction is reflected in the overall low Charlson comorbidity index (mean of 1) of the matched case-control cohorts. As anticipated, we found a net cost reduction of $20,449 per case, or a 48% cost reduction per case among the 10 IVIG-treated patients compared to the 20 matched controls.

We then went back to the patients from the randomized prospective trial and compared costs for the 13 of 16 IVIG patients and 14 of 17 of the control patients for whom data was available. Among this group, we found net cost reduction of $34,439 per case, or a 55% cost reduction per case. The higher costs seen in the randomized patient cohort may be due to a combination of the fact that the patients had slightly higher comorbidity indices than the case-control group (median Charlson comorbidity index of 2 in both groups) and the fact that they were treated earlier in the pandemic (May-June 2020) as opposed to the case-control group patients who were treated in November-December 2020.

It was notable that the cost savings across both groups was derived largely from the reduction in the approximately 20-25% of control patients that went on to critical illness including mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and prolonged ICU stays. Indeed, 8 of 34 of control patients but none of the 23 IVIG patients generated hospital costs in excess of $100,000, a difference that was statistically significant even for such a small sample size. Therefore, reducing these very costly outlier events in the minority of patients translated into net savings across the board.

In addition to reducing costs, reducing progression to critical illness is extremely important during heavy waves of COVID-19, when the sheer volume of patients severely strains the relative scarcity of ICU beds, mechanical ventilators, and ECMO. Therefore, reducing the need for these resources would have a vital role that cannot be measured economically.

The major limitations of this study include the small sample size and the potential lack of generalizability of these results to all hospital centers. Our group has generated considerable experience in IVIG utilization in COVID-19 and as a result, has identified a ‘sweet spot’ where benefit was seen clinically and economically. However, it remains to be determined if IVIG will benefit patients with greater illness severity such as those in the ICU, on mechanical ventilation, or ECMO. Furthermore, while a significant morbidity and mortality burden of COVID-19 rests in extremely elderly patients and those with end-organ comorbidities such as renal failure and heart failure, it is uncertain if their COVID-19 adverse outcomes can be improved with IVIG or other therapies. We believe such patients may limit the pharmacoeconomic value of IVIG due to their generally poorer prognosis regardless of intervention. On the other hand, COVID-19 patients who are not that severely ill with minimal to no hypoxia generally will do well regardless of therapy and IVIG intervention may be potentially be an unnecessary treatment expense. Evidence for this was hinted in our pilot trial¹⁰ and supported in a recent meta-analysis of IVIG therapy in COVID-19.¹⁶

Several other therapeutic options with high acquisition costs have seen an increase in use during the COVID-19 pandemic despite relatively lukewarm data. Remdesivir, the first drug found to have a beneficial effect on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, is priced at $3,120 for a complete five day treatment course in the United States. This was in line with initial pricing models from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in May 2020, assuming a mortality benefit with remdesivir use. After the SOLIDARITY trial was published, which showed no mortality benefit associated with remdesivir use, ICER updated their pricing models and released a statement that the price of remdesivir was too high to align with demonstrated benefits in June 2020.^17,18 More recent data demonstrates that remdesivir may be beneficial, but only if administered to patients with < 6 days of symptoms.¹⁹ However, only a minority of patients present to the hospital early enough in their illness for remdesivir to be beneficial.¹⁹

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) inhibitor, saw an increase in use during the pandemic. An 800 mg treatment course for COVID-19 costs $3,584. The efficacy of this treatment option came into question after the COVACTA trial failed to show a difference in clinical status or mortality in COVID-19 patients who received tocilizumab versus placebo.^20,21 A more recent study pointed to a survival benefit of tocilizumab in COVID-19, driven by a very large sample size (>4000), yielding statistically significant but perhaps clinically insignificant effects on survival (31% mortality versus 35% mortality).²² This latter study points to the extremely large sample sizes required to capture statistically significant benefits of expensive interventions in COVID-19, which our data demonstrate may benefit only a fraction of patients (20-25% of patients in the case of IVIG). A more granular clinical assessment of these other interventions is needed to be able to capture the patient subtypes where tocilizumab, remdesivir, and other therapies will be viable pharmacoeconomically in the treatment of COVID-19, or other virally-mediated cases of ARDS.

In summary, while IVIG has a high drug acquisition cost, utilization of IVIG in hypoxic COVID-19 patients resulted in reduced costs per COVID-19 case by approximately 50% and a reduction in use of critical care resources. The difference was consistent between two cohorts differing in ways of patient identification (randomized trial vs. off-label use in pre-specified COVID-19 patient types), IVIG products used (Octagam 10% vs Privigen), and time period in the pandemic (Waves 1 and 2 in May/June 2020 vs. November/December 2020). Higher costs of care of control patients was driven largely by ∼25% of patients that required costly hospital critical care resources, a group mitigated by IVIG. When allocated to the appropriate patient type (patients with moderate to severe but not critical illness, < age 70 without pre-existing comorbidities of end-organ failure or active cancer), IVIG can reduce hospital costs in COVID-19 care. Given that IVIG has shown potential benefit in a variety of viral illnesses, care must be taken in future viral pandemics to identify specific patient populations where IVIG has the most anticipated benefit.