Objectives One important group of people at higher risk from the COVID-19 pandemic are those with autoimmune conditions including rheumatoid arthritis/inflammatory bowel disease. To minimise infection risk, many people are now being switched from intravenous to subcutaneous biologics including biosimilars. A key question is how transition costs are viewed by clinicians. Design The survey was designed to understand the comparative economic issues related to the intravenous infusion vs subcutaneous biologic administration routes for infliximab. The survey focused on direct cost drivers/indirect cost drivers. Wider policy implications linked to the pandemic were also explored. Setting/Participants Semi structured telephone interviews were carried out with twenty key stakeholders across the NHS from clinical/pharmacy/commissioning roles. The interviews were undertaken virtually 5thApril-27thApril 2020 and included a semi-structured interview framework with questions across the two administration routes. Results From interview results a simple cost analysis was developed plus a qualitative analysis of reports on wider policy/patient impacts. Key findings included evidence of significant variation in infusion tariffs UK wide, with interviewees reporting that not all actual costs incurred are captured in published tariff costs. A cost analysis showed administration costs 50% that of infusion, with a most patients administering subcutaneous medicines themselves. Other indirect benefits to this route included less pressure on infusion unit waiting times and reduced risk of COVID-19 infection plus reduced patient costs. However, this was to some extent offset by increased pressure on home-care and community/primary care services. Conclusions Switching from infusion to subcutaneous routes is currently being driven by the COVID-19 pandemic in many services. A case for biologics (infusion vs subcutaneous) must be made on accurate real-world economic analysis. In an analysis of direct/indirect costs, excluding medicine acquisition costs, subcutaneous administration appears to be the more cost saving option for many patients even without the benefit of industry funded home-care.

The Facts COVID-19 is the disease associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The pandemic related to this virus has transformed life for billions of people across the globe. Using population based data from England, we recently showed a strong independent relation over time between our calculated R value for COVID-19 transmission and the number of cases identified as definitely positive in the population. We determined that 26.8% of the population of the United Kingdom (UK) possibly had been infected by late April 2020 approximating to 18.2 million people. Reflection Different modelling approaches give different answers to the question of how many people in the UK and elsewhere have actually been infected by COVID-19, which all would agree in epidemiological terms is behaving very differently from other Coronaviruses that we have seen in the past. We are learning more and more about this virus. National policy is changing rapidly and COIVD-19 antibody testing is increasingly being applied. This will facilitate better datasets from population based studies. The picture will become clearer as more data accrues over time.

At the date of writing this editorial, there is growing agreement amongst experts that the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic is in decline. The number of deaths reported each day is now around 1% of the cumulative total and falling. In general, the approach to predicting pandemic policy has been through a comparison of inter-country performance in managing this crisis. While all countries are paying a high price in economic slowdown and lives lost, the health consequences in terms of cases and deaths have varied considerably. Countries with lower relative mortality and infection numbers have shown a more structured logical approach to pandemic management. There is a very real urgency to learn lessons immediately given the pressure to reduce the home confinement policy as soon as possible. While this is clearly a challenging time for policy makers, public health messaging is often emotive around concepts such ‘being at war’ with the virus, and other similar statements. We propose that a more rational approach to moving forward is required to avoid a second wave. Understanding this rational approach can be found through an evaluation of not only how other countries are approaching this challenge, but also from history.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to radical political control of social behaviour. The purpose of this paper is to explore data trends from the pandemic regarding infection rates/policy impact, and draw learning points for informing the unlocking process. Methods The daily published cases in England in each of 149 Upper Tier Local Authority (UTLA) areas were converted to Average Daily Infection Rate(ADIR), an R-value - the number of further people infected by one infected person during their infectious phase with Rate of Change of Infection Rate(RCIR) also calculated. Stepwise regression was carried out to see what local factors could be linked to differences in local infection rates. Results By the 19th April 2020 the infection R has fallen from 2.8 on 23rd March before the lockdown and has stabilised at about 0.8 sufficient for suppression. However there remain significant variations between England regions. Regression analysis across UTLAs found that the only factor relating to reduction in ADIR was the historic number of confirmed number infection/000 population, There is however wide variation between Upper Tier Local Authorities (UTLA) areas. Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity. Conclusion Analysis of current case data using infectious ratio has provided novel insight into the current national state and can be used to make better-informed decisions about future management of restricted social behaviour and movement.