ArticleJournal of public health in Africa2025
A cost-effectiveness analysis of Molnupiravir and Paxlovid for outpatient treatment of COVID-19 in three African countries.
Article in Journal of public health in Africa, 2025. 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Value of Emerging and Existing Pre-prophylaxis and Therapeutic Options for COVID-19 in Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 booster doses and oral antivirals: Case studies in the Indo-Pacific.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Two COVID-19 oral antivirals (COAVs), Molnupiravir and Paxlovid, have been shown to be cost-effective in high-income countries. Aim: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, compared to usual care in three African countries. Setting: The study was conducted using data from Ghana, Rwanda and Zambia. Methods: We modelled costs (2022 United States dollars) and health outcomes in the acute phase of COVID-19 from a public payer's perspective in three unvaccinated target populations: (1) all adult patients, (2) patients aged 65 years and above (elderly), and (3) adult patients with other underlying risk factors for disease severity. We conducted pairwise and full incremental analyses. Results: In the pairwise analysis, Paxlovid was less costly and more effective than usual care (i.e. dominated) in all three study countries for elderly patients, while in adults with other underlying risk factors, Paxlovid dominated in Rwanda and Zambia, and Molnupiravir dominated usual care in Rwanda. Neither Paxlovid nor Molnupiravir were cost-effective in the all-adult group in any country context. In the full incremental analysis, Paxlovid dominated both Molnupiravir and usual care in elderly patients (in all three countries) and in adults with other risk factors (in Rwanda and Zambia). Key determinants of cost-effectiveness were COAV price, likelihood of early treatment initiation, hospitalisation rates and vaccination status. Conclusion: In African settings like Zambia, Ghana or Rwanda, Paxlovid could be cost-effective in unvaccinated populations and those at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19. Contribution: This study broadly supports African governments decisions not to procure substantial quantities of COAV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.