Economic burden of antimicrobial resistance and inappropriate empiric treatment in Thailand.

Objective: To quantify the economic burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in Thailand and estimate potential savings from improving the rate of appropriate empiric treatment, where effective coverage is provided within the first days of infection. Design: Cost-of-illness study. Methods: A cost-calculator, decision-tree model was developed using published data and records from 3 Thai hospitals for patients hospitalized with antimicrobial-resistant infections between 2015 and 2019. Direct and indirect costs of antimicrobial-resistant infections were assessed over a 5-year time horizon, with outcomes derived separately for cases having received appropriate empiric treatment versus inappropriate empiric treatment. In a real-world scenario, outcomes were estimated using actual rates of inappropriate empiric treatment, and in a hypothetical scenario, outcomes were estimated using decreased rates of inappropriate empiric treatment. Results: Over 5 years, in-hospital antimicrobial-resistant infections produced costs of approximately Thai baht (THB) 66.4 billion (USD 2.1 billion) in the real-world scenario and THB 65.8 billion (USD 2.1 billion) in the hypothetical scenario (0.9% cost savings relative to the real-world scenario). Most costs were attributable to income loss due to in-hospital mortality (real world: THB 53.7 billion [USD 1.7 billion]; 80.9% of costs; hypothetical: THB 53.2 billion [USD 1.7 billion]; 80.8% of costs) and hospitalization (real world: THB 10.3 billion [USD 330.8 million]; 15.5% of costs; hypothetical: THB 10.2 billion [USD 328.9 million]; 15.5% of costs). Conclusions: In-hospital antimicrobial-resistant infections produced a substantial economic toll in Thailand. This public health burden could be reduced with a strategy aimed at decreasing the rate of patients receiving inappropriate empiric treatment.

Assessing the Role of Infant and Toddler MenACWY Immunisation in the UK: Does the Adolescent MenACWY Programme Provide Sufficient Protection?

A combined Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)/meningococcal serogroup C (MenC) vaccine will soon be unavailable in the UK immunisation schedule due to discontinuation by the manufacturer. An interim statement by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advises stopping MenC immunisation at 12 months of age when this occurs. We undertook an analysis of the public health impact of various potential meningococcal vaccination strategies in the UK in the absence of the Hib/MenC vaccine. A static population-cohort model was developed evaluating the burden of IMD (using 2005-2015 epidemiological data) and related health outcomes (e.g., cases, cases with long-term sequelae, deaths), which allows for the comparison of any two meningococcal immunisation strategies. We compared potential strategies that included different combinations of infant and/or toddler MenACWY immunisations with the anticipated future situation in which a 12-month MenC vaccine is not used, but the MenACWY vaccine is routinely given in adolescents. The most effective strategy is combining MenACWY immunisation at 2, 4, and 12 months of age with the incumbent adolescent MenACWY immunisation programme, resulting in the prevention of an additional 269 IMD cases and 13 fatalities over the modelling period; of these cases, 87 would be associated with long-term sequelae. Among the different vaccination strategies, it was observed that those with multiple doses and earlier doses provided the greatest protection. Our study provides evidence suggesting that the removal of the MenC toddler immunisation from the UK schedule would potentially increase the risk of unnecessary IMD cases and have a detrimental public health impact if not replaced by an alternate infant and/or toddler programme. This analysis supports that infant and toddler MenACWY immunisation can provide maximal protection while complementing both infant/toddler MenB and adolescent MenACWY immunisation programmes in the UK.

Identification of an Optimal COVID-19 Booster Allocation Strategy to Minimize Hospital Bed-Days with a Fixed Healthcare Budget.

Healthcare decision-makers face difficult decisions regarding COVID-19 booster selection given limited budgets and the need to maximize healthcare gain. A constrained optimization (CO) model was developed to identify booster allocation strategies that minimize bed-days by varying the proportion of the eligible population receiving different boosters, stratified by age, and given limited healthcare expenditure. Three booster options were included: B1, costing US $1 per dose, B2, costing US $2, and no booster (NB), costing US $0. B1 and B2 were assumed to be 55%/75% effective against mild/moderate COVID-19, respectively, and 90% effective against severe/critical COVID-19. Healthcare expenditure was limited to US$2.10 per person; the minimum expected expense using B1, B2, or NB for all. Brazil was the base-case country. The model demonstrated that B1 for those aged <70 years and B2 for those ≥70 years were optimal for minimizing bed-days. Compared with NB, bed-days were reduced by 75%, hospital admissions by 68%, and intensive care unit admissions by 90%. Total costs were reduced by 60% with medical resource use reduced by 81%. This illustrates that the CO model can be used by healthcare decision-makers to implement vaccine booster allocation strategies that provide the best healthcare outcomes in a broad range of contexts.

Cost-effectiveness Comparison of Ceftazidime/Avibactam Versus Meropenem in the Empirical Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-associated Pneumonia, in Italy.

PURPOSE: Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose combination antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). The economic benefits of a new drug such as CAZ-AVI are required to be assessed against those of available comparators, from the perspective of health care providers and payers, through cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. The objective of this analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of appropriate hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP caused by gram-negative pathogens, from the perspective of publicly funded health care in Italy (third-party perspective, based on the data from the REPROVE (Ceftazidime-Avibactam Versus Meropenem In Nosocomial Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia) clinical study; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01808092). METHODS: A patient-level, sequential simulation model of the HAP/VAP clinical course was developed using spreadsheet software. The analysis focused on direct medical costs. The time horizon of the model selected was 5 years, with an annual discount rate of 3% on costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Clinical inputs for treatment comparisons were mainly obtained from the REPROVE clinical study data. In addition to clinical outcomes observed in the trial, the model incorporated impact of resistance pathogens, based on data from published studies and expert opinion. Certain assumptions were made for some model parameters due to a lack of data. FINDINGS: The analysis demonstrated that the intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) versus the comparator sequence (meropenem followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) provided a better clinical cure rate (+13.52%), which led to a shorter hospital stay (-0.40 days per patient), and gains in the number of life-years (+0.195) and QALYs (+0.350) per patient. The intervention sequence had an estimated net incremental total cost of €1254 ($1401) per patient, and the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €3581 ($4000) per QALY gained, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 ($33,507) per QALY in Italy. IMPLICATIONS: The model results showed that CAZ-AVI is expected to provide clinical benefits in hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP in Italy at an acceptable cost compared to meropenem.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceftazidime/avibactam compared to imipenem as empirical treatment for complicated urinary tract infections.

Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a novel, fixed-dose combination antibiotic that has been approved in Europe and the United States for patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) based on results of a Phase III, randomized, comparative study (RECAPTURE study). The present analysis evaluated cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI as an empirical treatment for hospitalized patients with cUTIs from the Italian publicly funded healthcare (third-party payer) perspective. A sequential, patient-level simulation model was developed that followed the clinical course of cUTI and generated 5000 pairs of identical patients (CAZ-AVI or imipenem as empirical treatment). The model included additional impact of resistant pathogens; patients who did not respond to empirical treatment were switched to second-line treatment of colistin+high dose carbapenem in both groups. The time horizon of the model was five years, with an annual discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The analysis demonstrated that an intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin+high dose carbapenem) compared with a comparator sequence (imipenem followed by colistin+high dose carbapenem) was associated with a net incremental cost of €1015 per patient but provided better health outcomes in terms of clinical cure (97.65% vs. 91.08%; ∆ = 6.57%), shorter hospital stays (10.65 vs. 12.55 days; ∆ = 1.90 days), and QALYs gained per patient (4.190 vs. 4.063; ∆ = 0.126). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €8039/QALY, which is well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000/QALY in Italy. The results showed that CAZ-AVI is expected to be a cost-effective treatment compared with imipenem for cUTI in Italy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) as empirical treatment comparing to ceftolozane/tazobactam and to meropenem for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI).

Background: The rising incidence of resistance to currently available antibiotics among pathogens, particularly Gram-negative pathogens, in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) has become a challenge for clinicians. Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for treating (in combination with metronidazole) cIAI in adult hospitalised patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options. The approval was based on the results of RECLAIM, a Phase III, parallel-group, comparative study (RECLAIM 1 [NCT01499290] and RECLAIM 2 [NCT01500239]). The objective of our study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole compared with 1) ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole and 2) meropenem, as an empiric treatment for the management of cIAI in Italy. Methods: A sequential, patient-level simulation model, with a 5-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate (applied to both costs and health benefits), was developed using Microsoft Excel® to demonstrate the clinical course of the disease. The impact of resistant pathogens was included as an additional factor. Results: In the base-case analysis, the CAZ-AVI sequence (CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole followed by a colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem combination after treatment failure), when compared to sequences for ceftolozane/tazobactam (ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure) and meropenem (meropenem followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure), had better clinical outcomes with higher cure rates (93.04% vs. 91.52%; 92.98% vs. 90.24%, respectively), shorter hospital stays (∆ = - 0.38 and ∆ = - 1.24 days per patient, respectively), and higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient (4.021 vs. 3.982; 4.019 vs. 3.960, respectively). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio in the CAZ-AVI sequence was €4099 and €15,574 per QALY gained versus each comparator sequence, respectively, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY accepted in Italy. Conclusions: The model results demonstrated that CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole could be a cost-effective alternative when compared with other antibiotic treatment options, as it is expected to provide better clinical benefits in hospitalised patients with cIAI in Italy.

Cost Effectiveness of Naloxegol for Opioid-Induced Constipation in the UK.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is the most common adverse effect reported in patients receiving opioids to manage pain. Initial treatment with laxatives provides inadequate response in some patients. Naloxegol is a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist used to treat patients with inadequate response to laxative(s) (laxative inadequate responder [LIR]). A cost-effectiveness model was constructed from the UK payer perspective to compare oral naloxegol 25 mg with placebo in non-cancer LIR patients receiving opioids for chronic pain, and a scenario analysis of naloxegol 25 mg with rescue laxatives compared with placebo with rescue laxatives in the same patient population. METHODS: The model comprised a decision tree for the first 4 weeks of treatment, followed by a Markov model with a 4-week cycle length and the following states: 'OIC', 'non-OIC (on treatment)', 'non-OIC (untreated)' and 'death'. Two phase III trials with a follow-up period of 12 weeks provided data on treatment efficacy, transition probabilities, adverse event frequency and patient utility. Resource utilisation data were sourced from a UK-based burden of illness study and physician surveys. A UK National Health Service and Personal Social Service perspective was adopted; costs and health-related quality of life gains were discounted at a rate of 3.5 %. The model was run over a time horizon of 5 years, reflecting the average period of opioid use. RESULTS: Naloxegol has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £10,849 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus placebo, and £11,179 when rescue laxatives are made available in both arms (2014 values). Model outcomes were only sensitive to variations in utility inputs. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicate that naloxegol has a 91 % probability of being cost effective at a £20,000 threshold when compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxegol is likely a cost-effective treatment option for LIR patients with OIC. This assessment should be supported by further work on the utility of patients with OIC, including how utility varies with more granular measures of OIC.

Cost-effectiveness of adding carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma from a US perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic value of carfilzomib (Kyprolis), this study developed the Kyprolis Global Economic Model (K-GEM), which examined from a United States (US) payer perspective the cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide-dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM; 1-3 prior therapies) based on results from the phase III ASPIRE trial that directly compared these regimens. METHODS: A partitioned survival model that included three health states of progression-free (on or off treatment), post-progression, and death was developed. Using ASPIRE data, the effect of treatment regimens as administered in the trial was assessed for progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Treatment effects were estimated with parametric regression models adjusting for baseline patient characteristics and applied over a lifetime horizon. US Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (1984-2014) registry data were matched to ASPIRE patients to extrapolate OS beyond the trial. Estimated survival was adjusted to account for utilities across health states. The K-GEM considered the total direct costs (pharmacy/medical) of care for patients treated with KRd and Rd. RESULTS: KRd was estimated to be more effective compared to Rd, providing 1.99 life year and 1.67 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains over the modeled horizon. KRd-treated patients incurred $179,393 in total additional costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $107,520 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: Extrapolated survival functions present the greatest uncertainty in the modeled results. Utilities were derived from a combination of sources and assumed to reflect how US patients value their health state. CONCLUSIONS: The K-GEM showed KRd is cost-effective, with an ICER of $107,520 per QALY gained against Rd for the treatment of patients with RMM (1-3 prior therapies) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. Reimbursement of KRd for patients with RMM may represent an efficient allocation of the healthcare budget.