Cost-effectiveness of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.

Aim: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) for treating hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) in an 'early adjustment prescribing scenario'. Methods: An economic model was constructed to compare two strategies: continuation of empiric piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ) versus early adjustment to IMI/REL. A decision tree was used to depict the hospitalization period, and a Markov model used to capture long-term outcomes. Results: IMI/REL generated more quality-adjusted life years than PIP/TAZ, at an increased cost per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $17,529 per QALY is below the typical US willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusion: IMI/REL may represent a cost-effective treatment for payers and a valuable option for clinicians, when considered alongside patient risk factors, local epidemiology, and susceptibility data.

Cost­Effectiveness of Lorlatinib in First-Line Treatment of Adult Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)­Positive Non­Small­Cell Lung Cancer in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of lorlatinib, a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), used first-line in Sweden to treat patients with ALK-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In January 2022, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) extended its approval of lorlatinib to include adult patients with ALK+ NSCLC not previously treated with an ALK inhibitor. Extended first-line approval was based on results from CROWN, a phase III randomized trial that enlisted 296 patients randomized 1:1 to receive lorlatinib or crizotinib. Our analysis compared lorlatinib against the first-generation ALK-TKI crizotinib, and second-generation ALK TKIs alectinib and brigatinib. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with four health states [pre-progression, non-intracranial (non-central nervous system [CNS]) progression, CNS progression, and death] was constructed. The progressed disease state (which is typically modelled in cost-effectiveness analyses of oncology treatments) was explicitly separated into non-CNS and CNS progression as brain metastases, which are common in NSCLC, and can have a large impact on patient prognosis and health-related quality of life. Treatment effectiveness estimates in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms of the model were derived from CROWN data, while indirect relative effectiveness estimates for alectinib and brigatinib were informed using network meta-analysis (NMA). Utility data were derived from the CROWN study in the base case, and cost-effectiveness results were compared when applying UK and Swedish value sets. Costs were obtained from Swedish national data. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model robustness. RESULTS: Fully incremental analysis identified crizotinib as the least costly and least effective treatment. Brigatinib was extendedly dominated by alectinib and, subsequently, alectinib was extendedly dominated by lorlatinib. Lorlatinib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Swedish Krona (SEK) 613,032 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with crizotinib. Probabilistic results were generally consistent with deterministic results, and one-way sensitivity identified NMA HRs, alectinib and brigatinib treatment duration, and the CNS-progressed utility multiplier as key model drivers. CONCLUSIONS: The ICER of SEK613,032 for lorlatinib versus crizotinib falls below the typical willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained for high-severity diseases in Sweden (approximately SEK1,000,000). Furthermore, as brigatinib and alectinib were extendedly dominated in the incremental analysis, the results of our study indicate that lorlatinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option for first-line patients with ALK+ NSCLC in Sweden when compared with crizotinib, alectinib, and brigatinib. Longer-term follow-up data for endpoints informing treatment effectiveness for all first-line treatments would help to reduce uncertainty in the findings.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Spain.

Purpose: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of lorlatinib compared to alectinib and brigatinib for the treatment of adult patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously not treated, in Spain. Methods: A partitioned survival model comprised progression free, non-intracranial progression, intracranial progression, and death health states was constructed to estimate the total costs, life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accumulated in a lifetime horizon. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for lorlatinib were obtained from the CROWN study. For alectinib and brigatinib, a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted to estimate OS and PFS hazard ratios versus crizotinib. Utilities were estimated based on EQ-5D-5L data derived from the CROWN (lorlatinib), ALEX (alectinib) and ALTA-1L (brigatinib) studies. According to the Spanish National Health Service perspective the total costs (expressed in euros using a 2021 cost year) included drug acquisition and the administration's subsequent treatment, ALK+ advanced NSCLC management and adverse-event management, and palliative care. Unitary costs were obtained from local cost databases and literature. Costs, LYGs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the model's robustness. Results: Lorlatinib provided higher health outcomes (+0.70 LYG/patient, +1.42 QALYs/patient) and lower costs (-€9239/patient) than alectinib. Lorlatinib yielded higher LYG (+1.74) and QALYs (+2.30) versus brigatinib but higher costs/patient (+€36,627), resulting in an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of €15,912/QALY gained. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that lorlatinib may be a dominant treatment option versus alectinib. Considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000/QALY, lorlatinib may be an efficient option compared to brigatinib.

Cost-Effectiveness of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Compared with Colistin in Treatment of Gram-Negative Infections Caused by Carbapenem-Non-Susceptible Organisms.

INTRODUCTION: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL), a combination ß-lactam antibiotic (imipenem) with a novel ß-lactamase inhibitor (relebactam), is an efficacious and well-tolerated option for the treatment of hospitalized patients with gram-negative (GN) bacterial infections caused by carbapenem-non-susceptible (CNS) pathogens. This study examines cost-effectiveness of IMI/REL vs. colistin plus imipenem (CMS + IMI) for the treatment of infection(s) caused by confirmed CNS pathogens. METHODS: We developed an economic model comprised of a decision-tree depicting initial hospitalization, and a Markov model projecting long-term health and economic impacts following discharge. The decision tree, informed by clinical data from RESTORE-IMI 1 trial, modeled clinical outcomes (mortality, cure rate, and adverse events including nephrotoxicity) in the two comparison scenarios of IMI/REL versus CMS + IMI for patients with CNS GN infection. Subsequently, a Markov model translated these hospitalization stage outcomes (i.e., death or uncured infection) to long-term consequences such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model robustness. RESULTS: IMI/REL compared to CMS + IMI demonstrated a higher cure rate (79.0% vs. 52.0%), lower mortality (15.2% vs. 39.0%), and reduced nephrotoxicity (14.6% vs. 56.4%). On average a patient treated with IMI/REL vs. CMS + IMI gained additional 3.7 QALYs over a lifetime. Higher drug acquisition costs for IMI/REL were offset by shorter hospital length of stay and lower AE-related costs, which result in net savings of $11,015 per patient. Sensitivity analyses suggested that IMI/REL has a high likelihood (greater than 95%) of being cost-effective at a US willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000-150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with confirmed CNS GN infection, IMI/REL could yield favorable clinical outcomes and may be cost-saving-as the higher IMI/REL drug acquisition cost is offset by reduced nephrotoxicity-related cost-for the US payer compared to CMS + IMI.

Cost Effectiveness of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Compared with Meropenem for the Treatment of Patients with Ventilated Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (vHABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) has been demonstrated in the phase III randomised controlled trial ASPECT-NP. However, there are no published data on the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam for vHABP/VABP. These nosocomial infections are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, and are increasingly complicated by growing rates of resistance and the inappropriate use of antimicrobials. This study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem for the treatment of vHABP/VABP in a US hospital setting. METHODS: A short-term decision tree followed by a long-term Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the treatment of patients with vHABP/VABP. Pathogen susceptibility and clinical efficacy were informed by the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database and ASPECT-NP, respectively. A US healthcare sector perspective was adopted, capturing direct costs borne by third-party payers or integrated health systems, and direct health effects for patients. RESULTS: In the confirmed treatment setting (post-susceptibility results), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem was US$12,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); this reduced when used in the early treatment setting (before susceptibility results) at $4775/QALY. CONCLUSION: Ceftolozane/tazobactam represents a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients with vHABP/VABP versus meropenem when used in either the confirmed or early treatment setting; with increased cost-effectiveness shown in the early setting.