Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection in patients aged ≥60 years (EXTEND): analysis of cost-effectiveness.

Objectives: The randomized Phase IIIb/IV EXTEND trial showed that extended-pulsed fidaxomicin significantly improved sustained clinical cure and reduced recurrence versus vancomycin in patients ≥60 years old with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Cost-effectiveness of extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus vancomycin as first-line therapy for CDI was evaluated in this patient population. Methods: Clinical results from EXTEND and inputs from published sources were used in a semi-Markov treatment-sequence model with nine health states and a 1 year time horizon to assess costs and QALYs. The model was based on a healthcare system perspective (NHS and Personal Social Services) in England. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Patients receiving first-line extended-pulsed fidaxomicin treatment had a 0.02 QALY gain compared with first-line vancomycin (0.6267 versus 0.6038 QALYs/patient). While total drug acquisition costs were higher for extended-pulsed fidaxomicin than for vancomycin when used first-line (£1356 versus £260/patient), these were offset by lower total hospitalization costs (which also included treatment monitoring and community care costs; £10 815 versus £11 459/patient) and lower costs of managing adverse events (£694 versus £1199/patient), reflecting the lower incidence of CDI recurrence and adverse events with extended-pulsed fidaxomicin. Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin cost £53 less per patient than vancomycin over 1 year. The probability that first-line extended-pulsed fidaxomicin was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000/QALY was 76% in these patients. Conclusions: While fidaxomicin acquisition costs are higher than those of vancomycin, the observed reduced recurrence rate with extended-pulsed fidaxomicin makes it a more effective and less costly treatment strategy than vancomycin for first-line treatment of CDI in older patients.

Economic Impact of Mirabegron Versus Antimuscarinics for the Treatment of Overactive Bladder in the UK.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to estimate the economic outcomes of using mirabegron versus antimuscarinics in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from a societal perspective in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed using Microsoft Excel®. The time horizon and cycle length are 12 and 1 months, respectively; and the hypothetical cohort size 100 patients. Antimuscarinic comparators are fesoterodine, oxybutynin extended release (ER) and immediate release (IR), solifenacin, tolterodine ER/IR, trospium ER/IR, darifenacin and flavoxate. Model inputs included real-world treatment patterns data, healthcare resource use (e.g. clinic visits) and direct and indirect costs (e.g. drug acquisition and productivity loss). Model outputs included patient disposition, healthcare resource use, drug acquisition costs and other treatment-related costs over a 1-year time horizon. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the key drivers of the model. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients, total annual costs per patient were lower with mirabegron than with all antimuscarinics (£1270.84 vs. 1321.71-1607.48). Healthcare resource use was lower with mirabegron than with all antimuscarinics (115 vs. 119-123 general practitioner visits; 173 vs. 178-185 specialist visits and 0.0042 vs. 0.0050-0.0060 surgical operations) and fewer work hours were lost (4017 vs. 5114-6990 [all per 100 patients]). Sensitivity analysis showed the model was sensitive to persistence and switching rates, although the impact on the overall results was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, using mirabegron to treat OAB may improve persistence and lead to reductions in switching treatment, healthcare resource utilization, productivity costs, and overall treatment costs versus antimuscarinics.