Substantial health and economic burden of COVID-19 during the year after acute illness among US adults not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients recovering from SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute COVID-19 illness can experience a range of long-term post-acute effects. The potential clinical and economic burden of these outcomes in the USA is unclear. We evaluated diagnoses, medications, healthcare utilization, and medical costs before and after acute COVID-19 illness in US patients who were not at high risk of severe COVID-19. METHODS: This study included eligible adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from April 1 to May 31, 2020, who were 18 - 64 years of age, and enrolled within Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database for 12 months before and 13 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients with any condition or risk factor placing them at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 were excluded. Percentages of diagnoses, medications, healthcare utilization, and costs were calculated during baseline (12 months preceding diagnosis) and the post-acute phase (12 months after the 30-day acute phase of COVID-19). Data were stratified into 3 cohorts according to disposition during acute COVID-19 illness (i.e., not hospitalized, hospitalized without intensive care unit [ICU] admission, or admitted to the ICU). RESULTS: The study included 3792 patients; 56.5% of patients were men, 44% were White, and 94% did not require hospitalization. Compared with baseline, patients during the post-acute phase had percentage increases in the diagnosis of the following disorders: blood (166%), endocrine and metabolic (123%), nervous system (115%), digestive system (76%), and mental and behavioral (75%), along with increases in related prescriptions. Substantial increases in all measures of healthcare utilization were observed among all 3 cohorts. Total medical costs increased by 178% during the post-acute phase. Those who were hospitalized with or without ICU admission during the acute phase had the greatest increases in comorbidities and healthcare resource utilization. However, the burden was apparent across all cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: As evidenced by resource use in the post-acute phase, COVID-19 places a significant long-term clinical and economic burden among US individuals, even among patients whose acute infection did not merit hospitalization.

Substantial health and economic burden of COVID-19 during the year after acute illness among US adults at high risk of severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID conditions encompass a range of long-term symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The potential clinical and economic burden in the United States is unclear. We evaluated diagnoses, medications, healthcare use, and medical costs before and after acute COVID-19 illness in US patients at high risk of severe COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 from April 1 to May 31, 2020, had ≥ 1 condition placing them at risk of severe COVID-19, and were enrolled in Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database for ≥ 12 months before and ≥ 13 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Percentages of diagnoses, medications, resource use, and costs were calculated during baseline (12 months preceding diagnosis) and the post-acute phase (12 months after the 30-day acute phase of COVID-19). Data were stratified by age and COVID-19 severity. RESULTS: The cohort included 19,558 patients (aged 18-64 y, n = 9381; aged ≥ 65 y, n = 10,177). Compared with baseline, patients during the post-acute phase had increased percentages of blood disorders (16.3%), nervous system disorders (11.1%), and mental and behavioral disorders (7.7%), along with increases in related prescriptions. Overall, there were substantial increases in inpatient and outpatient healthcare utilization, along with a 23.0% increase in medical costs. Changes were greatest among older patients and those admitted to the intensive care unit for acute COVID-19 but were also observed in younger patients and those who did not require COVID-19 hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant clinical and economic burden of post-COVID conditions among US individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19.

Health-related quality of life in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the UK: a cross-sectional study from pre- to post-infection.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to estimate the impact of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time among individuals in the United Kingdom, adding to the evidence base that had focussed on severe COVID-19. METHODS: A bespoke online survey was administered to individuals who self-reported a positive COVID-19 test. An amended version of a validated generic HRQoL instrument (EQ-5D-5L) was used to measure HRQoL retrospectively at different timepoints over the course of an infection: pre-COVID-19, acute COVID-19, and long COVID. In addition, HRQoL post-COVID-19 was captured by the original EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. A mixed-effects model was used to estimate changes in HRQoL over time, adjusted for a range of variables correlated with HRQoL. RESULTS: The study recruited 406 participants: (i) 300 adults and 53 adolescents with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who had not been hospitalised for COVID-19 during acute COVID-19, and (ii) 53 adults who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 in the acute phase and who had been recruited for validation purposes. Data were collected between January and April 2022. Among participants included in the base-case analysis, EQ-5D-5L utility scores were lower during both acute COVID-19 (ß=-0.080, p = 0.001) and long COVID (ß=-0.072, p < 0.001) compared to pre COVID-19. In addition, EQ-5D-5L utility scores post-COVID-19 were found to be similar to the EQ-5D-5L utility scores before COVID-19, including for patients who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 during the acute phase or for those who had experienced long COVID. Moreover, being hospitalised in the acute phase was associated with additional utility decrements during both acute COVID-19 (ß=-0.147, p = 0.026) and long (ß=-0.186, p < 0.001) COVID. CONCLUSION: Patients perceived their HRQoL to have varied significantly over the course of a mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection. However, HRQoL was found to return to pre-COVID-19 levels, even for patients who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 during the acute phase or for those who had experienced long COVID.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia: A Real-World Comparative Clinical Outcomes Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia results in substantial morbidity and mortality. As current treatments often lead to unsatisfactory outcomes, evidence guiding alternative treatment options is needed. This study evaluated real-world clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of MRSA bacteremia. METHODS: This retrospective study included adults hospitalized with MRSA bacteremia between 2011 and 2019. Patients were classified according to treatment with ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline), vancomycin, or daptomycin: Group 1, ceftaroline; Group 2, vancomycin or daptomycin (without ceftaroline); Group 3, combination therapy with ≥ 2 of these three agents. Clinical outcomes were compared using propensity-score-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 24,479 patients were included (Group 1, n = 532; Group 2, n = 21,555; Group 3, n = 2392). Mean age was 59.6, 60.8, and 57.4 years in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Mean post-index treatment length of stay was 8.8, 8.8, and 8.0 days, respectively. The most frequent line of therapy was ceftaroline first-line (42.1%), vancomycin or daptomycin first-line (95.4%), and combination therapy third-line or later (67.8%) in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Compared with Group 2, Groups 1 and 3 had similar favorable clinical responses {odds ratio [OR] = 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.44], p = 0.08; OR = 1.20 [95% CI 0.97-1.47], p = 0.09, respectively} and were less likely to switch treatment (both p < 0.001). Compared with Group 2, Group 1 was more likely to undergo 30-day all-cause readmission [OR = 1.38 (95% CI 1.06-1.80), p = 0.02], whereas this was less likely for Group 3 [OR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.58-1.00), p = 0.05]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving ceftaroline more often had favorable clinical responses than those receiving vancomycin or daptomycin monotherapy. In the absence of large-scale randomized controlled trials, these real-world data provide insights into the potential role of ceftaroline for treating MRSA bacteremia.

Ceftaroline fosamil treatment patterns and outcomes in adults with community-acquired pneumonia: a real-world multinational, retrospective study.

Background: This multicentre, observational, retrospective chart review study assessed ceftaroline fosamil treatment patterns and outcomes in adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in usual care settings. Methods: Anonymized patient data were extracted from hospital records of adults with CAP who received ≥4 consecutive IV ceftaroline fosamil doses at sites in Brazil, Colombia, France, Greece, Italy, Russia and Spain. Results: The dataset included 185 patients (58.9% male; mean age 62.2 years), of whom 128 (69.2%) had severe CAP defined by CURB-65, PSI/PORT score or physician judgement. Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 44; 23.8%) and Staphylococcus aureus [MSSA (n = 15) and MRSA (n = 14)] were the most frequently identified pathogens. Clinical response occurred in 151 (81.6%) patients overall, and in 104 (81.3%) severe CAP patients. Response within ≤4 and >4 days occurred in 79 (42.7%) and 62 (33.5%) patients (unknown, n = 10), respectively. Twenty (10.8%) patients required readmission within 30 days. Thirty-day all-cause mortality rates were 9.7% (n = 18) overall and 10.2% (n = 13) in severe CAP. In sensitivity analysis using ICU admission as a more objective marker of severe CAP (n = 75), clinical response and 30 day mortality occurred in 57 (76.0%) and 10 (13.3%) patients, respectively. Overall, clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was associated with >60% shorter length of ICU stay (3.6 versus 9.2 days), and >30% lower hospital costs ($8449 versus $12 559) versus non-responders. Conclusions: Ceftaroline fosamil was effective in treating adults with CAP, including severe CAP, in Europe and Latin America. Clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was associated with reductions in healthcare resource use compared with non-responders.

Real-World Use and Treatment Outcomes of Ceftaroline Fosamil in Patients with Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infection: A Multinational Retrospective Study.

Background: Ceftaroline fosamil is approved for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP); however, data on its real-world use and effectiveness in Europe and Latin America are currently limited. This retrospective observational study assessed ceftaroline fosamil use and treatment outcomes in adults hospitalized with cSSTI or CAP treated with ceftaroline fosamil in a usual care setting in Europe and Latin America. Results for patients with cSSTI are reported. Methods: Data from patients with cSSTI who received ≥4 consecutive intravenous ceftaroline fosamil doses up to May 31, 2019, were collected from sites in Brazil, Colombia, France, Greece, Italy, and Spain. Patient characteristics, clinical management, hospitalization information, microbiological diagnosis, and clinical responses were summarized descriptively. Healthcare resource use variables were evaluated by clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil. Results: Data for 132 patients were included (58.3% male; mean age 58.5 years). Most common lesions were cellulitis/fasciitis (62.1%), abscess (34.1%), and post-surgical wounds (19.7%). Pathogens most frequently identified were methicillin-resistant (18.2%) and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (17.4%). Median (range) ceftaroline fosamil treatment duration was 8 (2-60) days (daily doses of 1200 [400-2400] mg); 78 patients (59.1%) received monotherapy. In total, 75 (56.8%) patients had additional antibiotics after ceftaroline fosamil. Clinical response occurred in 118 (89.4%) patients. All-cause 30-day readmission occurred in 13 (9.8%) patients, and all-cause 30-day mortality in 7 (5.3%). Clinical response to ceftaroline was associated with >25% shorter length of hospital and intensive care stay, and with ~40% lower hospital costs, versus non-responders. Conclusion: Ceftaroline fosamil was effective in treating adults with cSSTI and clinical response to ceftaroline fosamil was associated with reductions in healthcare resource use compared with non-responders, in Europe and Latin America. Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT04198571.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Empiric Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with cSSTI: An Economic Analysis from the Perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

Purpose: Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. The emergency nature of cSSTI hospitalizations requires starting immediate empiric intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, making the appropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy crucial. Patients and Methods: The use of ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other IV antibiotic therapies for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with cSSTI (vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, cloxacillin, tedizolid) was evaluated through cost consequences analysis. The model structure was a decision tree accounting for four different pathways: patients demonstrating early response (ER) either discharged early (with oral antibiotic) or remaining in hospital to continue the initial therapy; non-responders either remaining on the initial IV therapy or switching to a second-line antibiotic. The model perspective was the Spanish National Health System. Results: CFT resulted in average percentage of patients discharged early (PDE) of 24.6% (CI 19.49-30.2%) with average total cost per patient of €6763 (€6268-€7219). Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin and tedizolid resulted in average PDE of 22% (17.34-27.09%), 26.4% (20.5-32.32%), 28.6% (22.08-35.79%) and 26.5% (20.39-33.25%), respectively, for a total cost per patient of €6,619 (€5,902-€6,929), €6,394 (€5,881-€6,904), €6,855 (€5,800-€7,410) and €7,173 (€6,608-€7,763), respectively. Key model drivers were ER and antibiotic treatment duration, with hospital costs accounting for over 83% of the total expenditures. Conclusion: Given its clinical and safety profile, CFT is an acceptable choice for cSSTI empiric therapy providing comparable ER and costs to other relevant antibiotic options.

Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes Among Patients with Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: Analysis of the Phase 3 COVERS Randomized Trial of Ceftaroline Fosamil Versus Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam.

AIM: Exploratory analyses evaluated patient characteristics and outcomes among patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI) in the phase 3 COVERS study who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Adults with cSSTI (surface area ≥ 75 cm2) and evidence of systemic inflammation and/or underlying comorbidities were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 8 h [q8h]) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 h) plus aztreonam (1 g q8h) for 5-14 days. Clinical response and ICU length of stay (LOS) within first hospitalization were evaluated in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations; a Cox proportional hazards model identified factors associated with increased hospital LOS. RESULTS: Overall, 42 of 761 randomized patients were admitted to the ICU (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 32; vancomycin plus aztreonam, n = 10) prior to, or at start of, study treatment. Baseline differences between the ICU and non-ICU populations were indicative of more severe disease in ICU patients; within this subset, there were also some notable imbalances between treatment groups. Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure (ceftaroline fosamil vs. vancomycin plus aztreonam) were generally similar in the non-ICU and ICU subsets (MITT population 79% vs. 79% and 69% vs. 90.0%, respectively; CE population 87% vs. 85% and 80% vs. 89%, respectively). Median ICU LOS was 8 vs. 13 days, respectively. ICU admission was a risk factor predicting increased hospital LOS (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes for patients admitted to the ICU were generally similar to non-ICU patients, despite more severe baseline disease, with shorter median treatment duration in the ceftaroline fosamil group. ICU admission was associated with longer hospital LOS. Given the small sample size and unbalanced patient and disease characteristics within the ICU subgroup, differences between treatment groups should be interpreted with caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01499277.

Economic analysis of ceftaroline fosamil for treating community-acquired pneumonia in Spain.

Background: Adults admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) impose significant burden upon limited hospital resources. To achieve early response and possibly early discharge, thus reducing hospital expenditure, the choice of initial antibiotic therapy is pivotal.Methods: A cost-consequences model was developed to evaluate ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other antibiotic therapies (ceftriaxone, co-amoxiclav, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin) for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with moderate/severe CAP (PORT score III-IV) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).Findings: Compared with ceftriaxone, the model predicted an increase in the number of CFT-treated patients discharged early (PDE) (30.6% vs. 26.1%) while decreasing initial antibiotic failures (3.8% vs. 7.6%). For patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, CFT was cost-saving vs. ceftriaxone (by 1.2%) and significantly increased PDE (32.1% vs. 24.6%). CFT resulted in cost-saving vs. levofloxacin, due lower initial antibiotic therapy costs and increased PDE (30.6% vs. 14.9%). Moxifloxacin and co-amoxiclav early response rate of 53.63% and 54.24% resulted in cost neutrality vs. CFT, with direct comparison hampered by the significantly different early response criteria utilized in the literature.Conclusions: Despite a higher unit cost, CFT is a reasonable alternative to other agents for adults hospitalized with moderate/severe CAP, given the projected higher PDE achieved with similar or lower total costs.

Value of hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs [ASPs]: a systematic review.

Background: Hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) aim to promote judicious use of antimicrobials to combat antimicrobial resistance. For ASPs to be developed, adopted, and implemented, an economic value assessment is essential. Few studies demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of ASPs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the economic and clinical impact of ASPs. Methods: An update to the Dik et al. systematic review (2000-2014) was conducted on EMBASE and Medline using PRISMA guidelines. The updated search was limited to primary research studies in English (30 September 2014-31 December 2017) that evaluated patient and/or economic outcomes after implementation of hospital ASPs including length of stay (LOS), antimicrobial use, and total (including operational and implementation) costs. Results: One hundred forty-six studies meeting inclusion criteria were included. The majority of these studies were conducted within the last 5 years in North America (49%), Europe (25%), and Asia (14%), with few studies conducted in Africa (3%), South America (3%), and Australia (3%). Most studies were conducted in hospitals with 500-1000 beds and evaluated LOS and change in antibiotic expenditure, the majority of which showed a decrease in LOS (85%) and antibiotic expenditure (92%). The mean cost-savings varied by hospital size and region after implementation of ASPs. Average cost savings in US studies were $732 per patient (range: $2.50 to $2640), with similar trends exhibited in European studies. The key driver of cost savings was from reduction in LOS. Savings were higher among hospitals with comprehensive ASPs which included therapy review and antibiotic restrictions. Conclusions: Our data indicates that hospital ASPs have significant value with beneficial clinical and economic impacts. More robust published data is required in terms of implementation, LOS, and overall costs so that decision-makers can make a stronger case for investing in ASPs, considering competing priorities. Such data on ASPs in lower- and middle-income countries is limited and requires urgent attention.