Estimating the Value of New Antimicrobials in the Context of Antimicrobial Resistance: Development and Application of a Dynamic Disease Transmission Model.

OBJECTIVES: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a significant threat to patient and population health. The study aim was to develop and validate a model of AMR that defines and quantifies the value of new antibiotics. METHODS: A dynamic disease transmission and cost-effectiveness model of AMR consisting of three components (disease transmission, treatment pathway and optimisation) was developed to evaluate the health economic value of new antibiotics. The model is based on the relationship between AMR, antimicrobial availability and consumption. Model analysis explored the impact of different antibiotic treatment strategies on the development of AMR, patient and population estimates of health benefit, across three common treatment indications and pathogens in the UK. RESULTS: Population-level resistance to existing antimicrobials was estimated to increase from 10.3 to 16.1% over 10 years based on current antibiotic availability and consumption. In comparison, the diversified use of a new antibiotic was associated with significant reduction in AMR (12.8% vs. 16.1%) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains at a patient (7.7-10.3, dependent on antimicrobial efficacy) and population level (3657-8197, dependent on antimicrobial efficacy and the prevalence of AMR). Validation across several real-world data sources showed that the model output does not tend to systematically under- or over-estimate observed data. CONCLUSIONS: The development of new antibiotics and the appropriate use of existing antibiotics are key to addressing the threat of AMR. This study presents a validated model that quantifies the value of new antibiotics through clinical and economic outcomes of relevance, and accounts for disease transmission of infection and development of AMR. In this context, the model may be a useful tool that could contribute to the decision-making process alongside other potential models and expert advice.

Relative effectiveness of sunitinib versus everolimus in advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an updated matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

AIM: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of sunitinib and everolimus has been previously reported based on the RADIANT-3 everolimus trial. We performed an analysis using updated overall survival (OS) data based on sunitinib's trial (A6181111). METHODS: The MAIC matched on all baseline characteristics available from both studies. An anchored MAIC was performed for progression-free survival (PFS); an unanchored analysis was deemed more appropriate for OS due to crossover in both trials. A hazard ratio for sunitinib versus everolimus was derived from adjusted (weighted) sunitinib effects compared with the observed results for everolimus. RESULTS: The adjusted hazard ratio for sunitinib versus everolimus was 0.85 (0.39-1.89) for PFS and 0.82 (0.53-1.27) for OS. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate comparable PFS and OS with sunitinib and everolimus.