Fight Against Antimicrobial Resistance: We Always Need New Antibacterials but for Right Bacteria.

Antimicrobial resistance in bacteria is frightening, especially resistance in Gram-negative Bacteria (GNB). In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a list of 12 bacteria that represent a threat to human health, and among these, a majority of GNB. Antibiotic resistance is a complex and relatively old phenomenon that is the consequence of several factors. The first factor is the vertiginous drop in research and development of new antibacterials. In fact, many companies simply stop this R&D activity. The finding is simple: there are enough antibiotics to treat the different types of infection that clinicians face. The second factor is the appearance and spread of resistant or even multidrug-resistant bacteria. For a long time, this situation remained rather confidential, almost anecdotal. It was not until the end of the 1980s that awareness emerged. It was the time of Vancomycin-Resistance Enterococci (VRE), and the threat of Vancomycin-Resistant MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus). After this, there has been renewed interest but only in anti-Gram positive antibacterials. Today, the threat is GNB, and we have no new molecules with innovative mechanism of action to fight effectively against these bugs. However, the war against antimicrobial resistance is not lost. We must continue the fight, which requires a better knowledge of the mechanisms of action of anti-infectious agents and concomitantly the mechanisms of resistance of infectious agents.

Fidaxomicin versus Vancomycin as a First-Line Treatment for Clostridium difficile-Associated Diarrhea in Specific Patient Populations: A Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: The reduction in recurrent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) with fidaxomicin therapy may reduce hospital readmissions and lead to lower overall CDAD costs. However, studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin as first-line therapy from the U.S. hospital perspective are lacking. This study evaluated the costs associated with utilizing fidaxomicin or vancomycin as a first-line therapy for CDAD in specific patient populations from a U.S. hospital perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate total costs (hospitalization and drug costs) associated with using fidaxomicin or vancomycin as first-line therapy for a first episode and up to two recurrences of CDAD in five patient populations: general population, elderly, patients receiving concomitant antibiotics, and patients with renal impairment or cancer. RESULTS: The total cost of CDAD treatment using fidaxomicin first line in the general population was $14,442 per patient versus $14,179 per patient with vancomycin first line. In subgroup analyses, fidaxomicin use resulted in total hospital cost savings of $616 per patient in patients with cancer and $312 in patients with concomitant antibiotic use; vancomycin use was associated with total hospital cost savings of $243 per patient in the elderly and $371 in patients with renal impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Fidaxomicin as first-line CDAD therapy is associated with similar total costs as compounded vancomycin oral solution in the general population. In elderly and renally impaired patients, slight increases in hospital cost were observed with fidaxomicin therapy, and in patients with cancer or concomitant antibiotic use, hospital cost savings were observed.

A Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations of Antibiotic Treatments for Clostridium difficile Infection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with high management costs, particularly in recurrent cases. Fidaxomicin treatment results in lower recurrence rates than vancomycin and metronidazole, but has higher acquisition costs in Europe and the USA. This systematic literature review summarises economic evaluations (EEs) of fidaxomicin, vancomycin and metronidazole for treatment of CDI. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library) and conference proceedings (ISPOR, ECCMID, ICAAC and IDWeek) were searched for publications reporting EEs of fidaxomicin, vancomycin and/or metronidazole in the treatment of CDI. Reference bibliographies of identified manuscripts were also reviewed. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated according to the overall population of patients with CDI, as well as in subgroups with severe CDI or recurrent CDI, or those at higher risk of recurrence or mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 27 relevant EEs, conducted from the perspective of 12 different countries, were identified. Fidaxomicin was cost-effective versus vancomycin and/or metronidazole in 14 of 24 EEs (58.3%), vancomycin was cost-effective versus fidaxomicin and/or metronidazole in five of 27 EEs (18.5%) and metronidazole was cost-effective versus fidaxomicin and/or vancomycin in two of 13 EEs (15.4%). Fidaxomicin was cost-effective versus vancomycin in most of the EEs evaluating specific patient subgroups. Key cost-effectiveness drivers were cure rate, recurrence rate, time horizon, drug costs and length and cost of hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: In most EEs, fidaxomicin was demonstrated to be cost-effective versus metronidazole and vancomycin in patients with CDI. These results have relevance to clinical practice, given the high budgetary impact of managing CDI and increasing restrictions on healthcare budgets. OTHER: This analysis was initiated and funded by Astellas Pharma Inc.

Cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of fidaxomicin and vancomycin to treat Clostridium difficile infection in France.

BACKGROUND: Fidaxomicin is a macrocyclic antibiotic with proven efficacy against Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults. It was licensed in France in 2012, but, due to higher acquisition costs compared with existing treatments, healthcare providers require information on its cost/benefit profile. OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs and health outcomes of fidaxomicin and vancomycin, as reference treatment for CDI. METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate the treatment pathway, over 1 year, of adult patients with CDI receiving fidaxomicin or vancomycin. Several patient sub-groups (severe CDI; recurrent CDI; concomitant antibiotics; cancer; renal failure; elderly) were evaluated. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed based on cure and recurrence rates derived from published randomized clinical trials comparing fidaxomicin and vancomycin, and costs calculated from the payer perspective using French hospitalization data and drug cost databases. Model outputs included costs in euros (reference year 2014) and health outcomes (recurrence; sustained cure rates). Alternative scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed using data from other clinical trials in CDI, including one conducted in real-life clinical practice in France. RESULTS: Drug acquisition costs were €1,692 higher in fidaxomicin-treated patients, but this was offset by the lower hospitalization costs with fidaxomicin, which were reduced by €1,722. The reduction in the cost of hospitalization was driven by the significantly lower number of recurrences in fidaxomicin-treated patients, offsetting the acquisition cost of fidaxomicin in all sub-groups except recurrent CDI and concomitant antibiotics. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that, despite higher acquisition costs, the lower recurrence rate with fidaxomicin resulted in cost savings or low incremental costs compared with vancomycin.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Five Competing Strategies for the Management of Multiple Recurrent Community-Onset Clostridium difficile Infection in France.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is characterized by high rates of recurrence, resulting in substantial health care costs. The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of treatments for the management of second recurrence of community-onset CDI in France. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic simulation model to compare 5 treatments for the management of second recurrence of community-onset CDI: pulsed-tapered vancomycin, fidaxomicin, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) via colonoscopy, FMT via duodenal infusion, and FMT via enema. The model outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) among the 5 treatments. ICERs were interpreted using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €32,000/QALY. Uncertainty was evaluated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Three strategies were on the efficiency frontier: pulsed-tapered vancomycin, FMT via enema, and FMT via colonoscopy, in order of increasing effectiveness. FMT via duodenal infusion and fidaxomicin were dominated (i.e. less effective and costlier) by FMT via colonoscopy and FMT via enema. FMT via enema compared with pulsed-tapered vancomycin had an ICER of €18,092/QALY. The ICER for FMT via colonoscopy versus FMT via enema was €73,653/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations showed that FMT via enema was the most cost-effective strategy in 58% of simulations and FMT via colonoscopy was favored in 19% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €32,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: FMT via enema is the most cost-effective initial strategy for the management of second recurrence of community-onset CDI at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €32,000/QALY.

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of first-line fidaxomicin for patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in Germany.

PURPOSE: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) represents a significant economic healthcare burden, especially the cost of recurrent disease. Fidaxomicin produced significantly lower recurrence rates and higher sustained cure rates in clinical trials. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin in Germany in the first-line treatment of patient subgroups with CDI at increased risk of recurrence. METHODS: A semi-Markov model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin from a payer perspective in Germany. The model cycle length was 10 days. The time horizon was 1 year. Model inputs were probability of clinical cure, 30-day probability of recurrence, and 30-day attributable mortality based on evidence from two randomized controlled trials comparing fidaxomicin and vancomycin in patients with CDI. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were cost per quality-adjusted life year gained, cost per bed-day saved, and cost per recurrence avoided. RESULTS: Despite higher drug acquisition costs, fidaxomicin was dominant in the cancer subgroup (less costly and more effective) and cost-effective in the other subgroups, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios vs. vancomycin ranging from €26,900 to €44,500. Hospitalization costs of the first-line treatment of CDI with fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin were lower in every patient subgroup, resulting in budget impacts ranging from -€1325 (in patients ≥65 years) to -€2438 (in cancer patients). Reductions in the cost of treating recurrence with fidaxomicin ranged from -€574.32 per patient in those receiving concomitant antibiotics to -€1500.68 per patient in renally impaired patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patient subgroups with CDI at increased recurrence risk, fidaxomicin was cost-effective vs. vancomycin, and less costly and more effective in patients with cancer.

Economic assessment of fidaxomicin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in special populations (patients with cancer, concomitant antibiotic treatment or renal impairment) in Spain.

The objective of this paper was to assess the cost-utility of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in three specific CDI patient subgroups: those with cancer, treated with concomitant antibiotic therapy or with renal impairment. A Markov model with six health states was developed to assess the cost-utility of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in the patient subgroups over a period of 1 year from initial infection. Cost and outcome data used to parameterise the model were taken from Spanish sources and published literature. The costs were from the Spanish hospital perspective, in Euros (€) and for 2013. For CDI patients with cancer, fidaxomicin was dominant versus vancomycin [gain of 0.016 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and savings of €2,397 per patient]. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that fidaxomicin was cost-effective was 96 %. For CDI patients treated with concomitant antibiotic therapy, fidaxomicin was the dominant treatment versus vancomycin (gain of 0.014 QALYs and savings of €1,452 per patient), with a probability that fidaxomicin was cost-effective of 94 %. For CDI patients with renal impairment, fidaxomicin was also dominant versus vancomycin (gain of 0.013 QALYs and savings of €1,432 per patient), with a probability that fidaxomicin was cost-effective of 96 %. Over a 1-year time horizon, when fidaxomicin is compared to vancomycin in CDI patients with cancer, treated with concomitant antibiotic therapy or with renal impairment, the use of fidaxomicin would be expected to result in increased QALYs for patients and reduced overall costs.

Clinical and economic benefits of fidaxomicin compared to vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection.

We studied the clinical and economic impact of a protocol encouraging the use of fidaxomicin as a first-line drug for treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in patients hospitalized during a 2-year period. This study evaluated patients who received oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin for the treatment of CDI during a 2-year period. All included patients were eligible for administration of fidaxomicin via a protocol that encouraged its use for selected patients. The primary clinical endpoint was 90-day readmission with a diagnosis of CDI. Hospital charges and insurance reimbursements for readmissions were calculated along with the cost of CDI therapy to estimate the financial impact of the choice of therapy. Recurrences were seen in 10/49 (20.4%) fidaxomicin patients and 19/46 (41.3%) vancomycin patients (P = 0.027). In a multivariate analysis that included determinations of severity of CDI, serum creatinine increases, and concomitant antibiotic use, only fidaxomicin was significantly associated with decreased recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12 to 0.93). The total lengths of stay of readmitted patients were 183 days for vancomycin and 87 days for fidaxomicin, with costs of $454,800 and $196,200, respectively. Readmissions for CDI were reimbursed on the basis of the severity of CDI, totaling $151,136 for vancomycin and $107,176 for fidaxomicin. Fidaxomicin drug costs totaled $62,112, and vancomycin drug costs were $6,646. We calculated that the hospital lost an average of $3,286 per fidaxomicin-treated patient and $6,333 per vancomycin-treated patient, thus saving $3,047 per patient with fidaxomicin. Fidaxomicin use for CDI treatment prevented readmission and decreased hospital costs compared to use of oral vancomycin.

Comparison of in-patient costs for children treated on the AAML0531 clinical trial: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of drivers of treatment costs may help identify effective cost containment strategies and prioritize resources. We aimed to develop a method for estimating inpatient costs for pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) enrolled on NCI-funded Phase III trials, compare costs between AAML0531 treatment arms (standard chemotherapy ± gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GMTZ)), and evaluate primary drivers of costs for newly diagnosed pediatric AML. PROCEDURE: Patients from the AAML0531 trial were matched on hospital, sex, and dates of birth and diagnosis to the Pediatric Health Information Systems (PHIS) database to obtain daily billing data. Inpatient treatment costs were calculated as adjusted charges multiplied by hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios. Generalized linear models were used to compare costs between treatment arms and courses, and by patient characteristics. RESULTS: Inpatient costs did not differ by randomized treatment arm. Costs varied by course with stem cell transplant being most expensive, followed by Intensification II (cytarabine/mitoxantrone) and Induction I (cytarabine/daunorubicin/etoposide). Room/board and pharmacy were the largest contributors to inpatient treatment cost, representing 74% of the total cost. Higher AML risk group (P = 0.0003) and older age (P < 0.0001) were associated with significantly higher daily inpatient cost. CONCLUSIONS: Costs from external data sources can be successfully integrated into NCI-funded Phase III clinical trials. Inpatient treatment costs did not differ by GMTZ exposure but varied by chemotherapy course. Variation in cost by course was driven by differences in duration of hospitalization through room/board charges as well as increased clinical and pharmacy charges in specific courses.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in Clostridium difficile infection.

OBJECTIVES: Fidaxomicin was non-inferior to vancomycin with respect to clinical cure rates in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) in two Phase III trials, but was associated with significantly fewer recurrences than vancomycin. This economic analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin in patients with severe CDI and in patients with their first CDI recurrence. METHODS: A 1 year time horizon Markov model with seven health states was developed from the perspective of Scottish public healthcare providers. Model inputs for effectiveness, resource use, direct costs and utilities were obtained from published sources and a Scottish expert panel. The main model outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), for fidaxomicin versus vancomycin; ICERs were interpreted using willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000/QALY and £30,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Total costs were similar with fidaxomicin and vancomycin in patients with severe CDI (£14,515 and £14,344, respectively) and in patients with a first recurrence (£16,535 and £16,926, respectively). Improvements in clinical outcomes with fidaxomicin resulted in small QALY gains versus vancomycin (severe CDI, +0.010; patients with first recurrence, +0.019). Fidaxomicin was cost-effective in severe CDI (ICER £16,529/QALY) and dominant (i.e. more effective and less costly) in patients with a first recurrence. The probability that fidaxomicin was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY was 60% for severe CDI and 68% in a first recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Fidaxomicin is cost-effective in patients with severe CDI and in patients with a first CDI recurrence versus vancomycin.

Is fidaxomicin worth the cost? An economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: In May 2011, the Food and Drug Administration approved fidaxomicin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). It has been found to be noninferior to vancomycin; however, its cost-effectiveness for the treatment of CDI remains undetermined. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic simulation model to determine the economic value of fidaxomicin for CDI treatment from the third-party payer perspective. We looked at CDI treatment in these 3 cases: (1) no fidaxomicin, (2) only fidaxomicin, and (3) fidaxomicin based on strain typing results. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for fidaxomicin based on screening given current conditions was >$43.7 million per quality-adjusted life-year and using only fidaxomicin was dominated (ie, more costly and less effective) by the other 2 treatment strategies explored. The fidaxomicin strategy tended to remain dominated, even at lower costs. With approximately 50% of CDI due to the NAP1/BI/027 strain, a course of fidaxomicin would need to cost ≤$150 to be cost-effective in the treatment of all CDI cases and between $160 and $400 to be cost-effective for those with a non-NAP1/BI/027 strain (ie, treatment based on strain typing). CONCLUSIONS: Given the current cost and NAP1/BI/027 accounting for approximately 50% of isolates, using fidaxomicin as a first-line treatment for CDI is not cost-effective. However, typing and treatment with fidaxomicin based on strain may be more promising depending on the costs of fidaxomicin.

Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating fidaxomicin versus oral vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Fidaxomicin is a novel treatment for Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs). This new treatment, however, is associated with a higher acquisition cost compared with alternatives. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin or oral vancomycin for the treatment of CDIs. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis comparing fidaxomicin with oral vancomycin for the treatment of CDIs in the United States by creating a decision analytic model from the third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with fidaxomicin compared with oral vancomycin was $67,576/quality-adjusted life-year. A probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis showed that fidaxomicin had an 80.2% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Fidaxomicin remained cost-effective under all fluctuations of both fidaxomicin and oral vancomycin costs. The decision analytic model was sensitive to variations in clinical cure and recurrence rates. Secondary analyses revealed that fidaxomicin was cost-effective in patients receiving concominant antimicrobials, in patients with mild to moderate CDIs, and when compared with oral metronidazole in patients with mild to moderate disease. Fidaxomicin was dominated by oral vancomycin if CDI was caused by the NAP1/Bl/027 Clostridium difficile strain and was dominant in institutions that did not compound oral vancomycin. CONCLUSION: Results of our model showed that fidaxomicin may be a more cost-effective option for the treatment of CDIs when compared with oral vancomycin under most scenarios tested.

Impurity profiling of micronomicin sulfate injection by liquid chromatography-ion trap mass spectrometry.

The characterization of impurities present in micronomicin sulfate injection by liquid chromatography (LC) coupled with mass spectrometry (MS) is described. A reversed phase (RP)-LC method using a C18 column resistant to an alkaline (pH 11) aqueous mobile phase was developed and coupled to MS with an electrospray ionization (ESI) source in the positive ion mode which provides MS(n) capability. A total of thirty six impurities were detected in commercial samples: five impurities were identified by comparison of their fragmentation patterns with those of available related substances, eleven of them were identified in accordance with relevant literature, while the other twenty impurities were newly identified using the MS/MS spectra of the available related reference substances as interpretative templates combined with knowledge of the nature of functional group fragmentation behaviors. This work was applied to evaluate the quality of micronomicin sulfate injection from different manufacturers.