Cost-effectiveness of plasmapheresis and hemoperfusion in COVID-19 survivors: A six-month follow-up analysis after hospital discharge.

Introduction: To evaluate the short- and long-term clinical and financial outcomes of apheresis in COVID-19 survivors after hospital discharge.

Methods: Intensive care unit-discharged patients were followed for 6 months. Vital signs, laboratory markers, quality of life, and direct medical costs were analyzed to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and to plot cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves.

Results: A total of 68 patients (45 control, 18 plasmapheresis, and 5 hemoperfusion) were included. ICERs for plasmapheresis and hemoperfusion patients at discharge were $867.58 and $198.89 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, respectively. Respiration and blood pressure improved significantly at discharge. The improvements in oxygenation markers for plasmapheresis and hemoperfusion groups were lower than controls (8.56 ± 10.31 and 11.75 ± 16.88 vs. 11.37 ± 7.28 percent for SpO, 11.15 ± 21.15 and 11.05 ± 24.95 vs. 16.03 ± 5.61 mm Hg for PaO, respectively) However, the respiratory rate improvements corresponded to ICERs of $1034.77 and $269.94 for plasmapheresis and hemoperfusion, respectively. The ICERs for increasing mean arterial pressure were $24.83 and $30.94 per mm Hg, and plasmapheresis was more cost-effective than hemoperfusion in increasing serum calcium levels ($1649.35 per mg/dL). At 1-month post-discharge, both treatments showed worse outcomes compared to controls. At 6 months, the plasmapheresis ICER ($1884.95) exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold. The ICER for plasmapheresis at 6 months was $112.83 per rehospitalization day avoided, while hemoperfusion remained less effective than controls.

Conclusion: While plasmapheresis and hemoperfusion improved some clinical outcomes, their high costs and limited long-term cost-effectiveness suggest that these interventions may not be economically justified for treating COVID-19 patients. Careful evaluation is needed when considering their use in clinical practice.