Generic ibrutinib a potential cost-effective strategy for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Though the chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) management options in India are still limited compared to the novel drug options in resource-rich settings, the availability of less costly generics and the government health insurance scheme has enabled many patients to access the newer drugs in India. The current study compared the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of existing initial management options for the progression-free survival (PFS) time horizon from the patient's perspective. A two-health-state, PFS and progressive disease, Markov model was assumed for three regimens (generics): ibrutinib monotherapy, bendamustine-rituximab (B-R), and rituximab-chlorambucil (RClb) used as the frontline treatment of CLL patients in India. All costs, utilization of services, and consequences data during the PFS period were collected from interviewing patients during follow-up visits. The transition probability (TP) and average PFS information were obtained from landmark published studies. EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were utilized to assess the quality of life (QoL). Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were measured during the PFS period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were studied. Upon analysis, the entire monetary expense during the PFS time was ₹1581964 with ibrutinib, ₹171434 with B-R, and ₹91997 with RClb treatment arm. Pooled PFS and QALY gain was 10.33 and 8.28 years for ibrutinib, 4.08 and 3.53 years for the B-R regimen, and 1.33 and 1.23 years in RClb arms, respectively. Ibrutinib's ICER and ICUR were ₹214587.32 per PFS year gain and ₹282384.86 per QALY gain when assessed against the B-R regimen. Ibrutinib also performed better in ICER and ICUR against the RClb arm with ₹157014.29 per PFS year gain and ₹200413.6 per QALY gain. In conclusion, generic ibrutinib is a cost-effective initial line of management compared to other commonly used treatment regimes in resource-limited settings.

Coverage and Pricing Recommendations of the French National Health Authority for Innovative Drugs: A Retrospective Analysis From 2014 to 2020.

OBJECTIVES: This study provides a retrospective analysis of the recommendations of the French National Health Authority on the reimbursement and pricing of innovative drugs. METHODS: The analysis includes drugs subjected to both economic and clinical evaluations in France from 2014 to 2020. Ordered logistic and quantile regressions are used to estimate the factors associated with the clinical value (SMR), the clinical added value (ASMR), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of innovative drugs. All variables used in the regression analyses are extracted from the Clinical and Economic Opinions for the 146 observations. RESULTS: Regression analyses indicate that 2 of the 5 official criteria, the efficacy-adverse events balance of the drug and its function, are significantly associated with the SMR rating. The ASMR is positively associated with the disease severity, the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain provided by the drug, and the validation of the ICUR in the Economic Opinion. At the first quartile of the ICUR distribution (approximately €50 000/QALY), higher ICUR levels are observed for drugs with a smaller target population and for drugs claimed as more innovative. Higher ICUR levels are also observed for pediatric drugs and for drugs with no therapeutic alternative at the third quartile of the distribution (approximately €240 000/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Not all official criteria of the SMR are associated with actual ratings obtained. Regarding the ASMR, the results support the idea of a convergence between the 2 independent clinical and economic appraisal processes. Finally, the factors influencing the ICUR level vary across the distribution of ICUR.

Unsuspected Malignancies in Routine Femoral Head Histopathologic Examination During Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Routine femoral head histopathology during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been recently reported as a potentially useful screening tool for bone- and bone marrow-associated malignancies. However, cost-effectiveness of routine histopathology during THA remains unclear due to low prevalence of significant medical findings which alter patient management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine histopathology in diagnosing unsuspected malignancy in patients undergoing primary THA. METHODS: From 1993 to 2011, we retrospectively analyzed routine histopathologic findings of 3200 femoral head specimens from 2725 patients that underwent primary THA. Preoperative and postoperative diagnoses were classified into concordant (clinical diagnosis concurred with pathologic diagnosis), discrepant (differing diagnosis with no resultant impact on patient management), and discordant (differing diagnosis with subsequent change in patient management). Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the incremental cost-utility ratio. RESULTS: A total of 3055 of 3200 pathologic samples were concordant with the preoperative diagnosis (95.4%), 140 of 3200 were discrepant (4.4%), and 5 of 3200 were discordant (0.2%). Routine histopathology revealed 1 unsuspected malignancy out of 640 (5 of 3200) femoral heads. The total cost of histopathologic screening was $614,664.80. The average cost to identify a discrepant case was $4390.46, and the cost to identify a discordant case was $122,932.96. The incremental cost-utility ratio was $49,569.74 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates routine femoral head histopathology may be cost-effective in diagnosing unsuspected malignancy at $49,569.74/QALY gained (less than World Health Organization recommended threshold $159,000/QALY gained), providing useful clinical information for surgeons considering the value of routine femoral head histopathology in patients undergoing THA.

Quality of life and cost-utility of surgical treatment for patients with spinal metastases: prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Palliative surgery for patients with spinal metastasis provides good clinical outcomes. However, there have been few studies on quality of life (QOL) and cost-utility of this surgery. We aimed to elucidate QOL and cost-utility of surgical treatment for spinal metastasis. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed 47 patients with spinal metastasis from 2010 to 2014 who had a surgical indication. Thirty-one patients who desired surgery underwent spinal surgery (surgery group). Sixteen patients who did not want to undergo spinal surgery (non-surgery group). The EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) and relevant costs were measured at one, three, six, and 12 months after study enrollment. Health state values were obtained by Japanese EQ-5D scoring and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained were calculated for each group. Cost-utility was expressed as the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). RESULTS: Health state values improved from 0.036 at study enrollment to 0.448 at 12 months in the surgery group, but deteriorated from 0.056 to 0.019 in the non-surgery group, with a significant difference between groups (P < 0.05). The mean QALY gained at 12 months were 0.433 in the surgery group and 0.024 in the non-surgery group. The mean total cost per patient in the surgery group was $25,770 compared with $8615 in the non-surgery group. The ICUR using oneyear follow-up data was $42,003/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment for spinal metastases is associated with significant improvement in health state value. In orthopaedic surgery, an ICUR less than $50,000/QALY gained is considered acceptable cost-effectiveness. Our results indicate that surgical treatment could be cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus surveillance for the adjuvant treatment of patients with urothelial carcinoma who are at high risk of recurrence: a US payer perspective.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant nivolumab compared with surveillance for the treatment of patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) after radical resection from a US healthcare payer perspective and to investigate the impact of alternative modeling approaches on the cost-effectiveness results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A four-state, semi-Markov model consisting of disease free, local recurrence, distant recurrence, and death health states was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with surveillance over a 30-year time horizon. The model used data from the randomized CheckMate 274 trial (NCT02632409) and published literature to inform transitions among health states, and inputs on cost, utility, adverse event, and disease management. Scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the impact of model structure and key assumptions on the results. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Total expected costs were higher with nivolumab ($162,278) compared with surveillance ($63,027). Nivolumab was associated with improved survival (1.61 life-years gained compared with surveillance) and an incremental gain of 0.98 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Although total treatment costs were higher for nivolumab, cost offsets were observed because of delayed or avoided recurrences and deaths experienced with nivolumab compared with observation. The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were $61,462/life-year and $100,930/QALY. LIMITATIONS: At the time of analysis, CheckMate 274 had limited follow-up on disease-free survival and no overall survival data. The limited evidence necessitated assumptions on modeling survival after each type of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective option for adjuvant treatment of MIUC for patients who are at high risk of recurrence after undergoing radical resection in the United States. Using a threshold of $150,000/QALY, the cost-effectiveness conclusions remained consistent across the scenario and sensitivity analyses conducted.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of upadacitinib as a treatment option for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

AIM: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of upadacitinib (targeted synthetic-disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug [ts-DMARD]) as first-line (1 L) treatment versus current treatment among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), who had an inadequate response to prior conventional-synthetic (csDMARDs) and/or biologic-DMARDs (bDMARDs). METHODS: This Excel-based model included patients with moderate (Disease Activity Score [DAS28]: >3.2 to ≤5.1) or severe RA (DAS28 > 5.1). Cost-effectiveness of current treatment (1 L: adalimumab-originator/biosimilar; second-line (2 L): other bDMARDs/tofacitinib) was compared against a new treatment involving two scenarios (1 L: upadacitinib, 2 L: adalimumab-biosimilar [scenario-1]/adalimumab-originator [scenario-2]) for a 10-year time-horizon from societal perspective. Model outcomes included direct and indirect costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), hospitalization days, number of orthopedic surgeries, and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) per QALY. RESULTS: With the current pathway, estimated total societal costs for 100 RA patients over 10-year period were Saudi Riyal (SAR) 50,450,354 (United States dollars [USD] 13,453,428) (moderate RA) and SAR50,013,945 (USD13,337,052) (severe RA). New pathway (scenario-1) showed that in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, upadacitinib led to higher QALY gain (+8.99 and +15.63) at lower societal cost (cost difference: -SAR2,023,522 [-USD539,606] and -SAR3,373,029 [-USD899,474], respectively). Thus, as 1 L, upadacitinib projects "dominant" ICUR per QALY over current pathway. Moreover, in alternate pathway (scenario-2), upadacitinib also projects "dominant" ICUR per QALY for patient with severe RA (QALY gain: +15.63; cost difference: -SAR 164,536 [-USD43,876]). However, moderate RA was associated with additional cost of SAR1,255,696 (USD334,852) for improved QALY (+8.99) over current pathway (ICUR per QALY: SAR139,742 [USD37,264]). Both scenarios resulted in reduced hospitalization days (scenario-1: -14.83 days; scenario-2: -11.41 days) and number of orthopedic surgeries (scenario-1: -8.36; scenario-2: -6.54) for moderate-to-severe RA over the current treatment pathway. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib as 1 L treatment in moderate-to-severe RA can considerably reduce healthcare resource burden in KSA, majorly due to reduced drug administration/monitoring/hospitalization/surgical and indirect costs.

Understanding cost-utility analysis studies in the trauma and orthopaedic surgery literature.

Cost-utility analysis (CUA) studies are becoming increasingly important due to the need to reduce healthcare spending, especially in the field of trauma and orthopaedics.There is an increasing need for trauma and orthopaedic surgeons to understand these economic evaluations to ensure informed cost-effective decisions can be made to benefit the patient and funding body.This review discusses the fundamental principles required to understand CUA studies in the literature, including a discussion of the different methods employed to assess the health outcomes associated with different management options and the various approaches used to calculate the costs involved.Different types of model design may be used to conduct a CUA which can be broadly categorized into real-life clinical studies and computer-simulated modelling. We discuss the main types of study designs used within each category. We also cover the different types of sensitivity analysis used to quantify uncertainty in these studies and the commonly employed instruments used to assess the quality of CUAs. Finally, we discuss some of the important limitations of CUAs that need to be considered.This review outlines the main concepts required to understand the CUA literature and provides a basic framework for their future conduct. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:305-315. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200115.

Biologics for severe, chronic plaque psoriasis: An Australian cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologics are a good therapeutic option for severe, chronic plaque psoriasis; however, they come with significant cost to the health care system. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-utility analysis of outpatient biologics (adalimumab, etanercept, guselkumab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab) available to adults with severe, chronic plaque psoriasis from the perspective of the Australian health care system. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was constructed to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs accrued for treatment pathways commencing with different first-line biologics, over a 96-week time horizon. The model adhered to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme eligibility criteria and guidelines. RESULTS: A biologic treatment pathway commencing on tildrakizumab was the most cost-effective first-line treatment (Australian dollar 39,930; total utility of 1.57 QALYs over 96 weeks). First-line secukinumab and risankizumab had incremental cost-utility ratios of Australian dollar 194,524/QALY and Australian dollar 479,834/QALY, respectively, when compared with first-line tildrakizumab. LIMITATIONS: The efficacy and utility input parameters were derived from international randomized control trials and patients from the United Kingdom, respectively. Findings from this study cannot be generalized beyond Australia. CONCLUSION: Tildrakizumab may be considered as first-line treatment for adult patients with severe, chronic plaque psoriasis embarking on biologic therapy, from the economic perspective of the Australian health care system.

Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression.

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are associated with a high burden of disease. However, due to the burden posed by the disease on not only the sufferers, but also on their relatives, there is an ongoing debate about which costs to include and, hence, which perspective should be applied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine whether the change between healthcare payer and societal perspective leads to different conclusions of cost-utility analyses in the case of depression. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify economic evaluations of interventions in depression, launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Registry of the Tufts University using a ten-year time horizon (2008-2018). In a two-stepped screening process, cost-utility studies were selected by means of specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, relevant findings was extracted and, if not fully stated, calculated by the authors of this work. RESULTS: Overall, 53 articles with 92 complete economic evaluations, reporting costs from healthcare payer/provider and societal perspective, were identified. More precisely, 22 estimations (24%) changed their results regarding the cost-effectiveness quadrant when the societal perspective was included. Furthermore, 5% of the ICURs resulted in cost-effectiveness regarding the chosen threshold (2% of them became dominant) when societal costs were included. However, another four estimations (4%) showed the opposite result: these interventions were no longer cost-effective after the inclusion of societal costs. CONCLUSIONS: Summarising the disparities in results and applied methods, the results show that societal costs might alter the conclusions in cost-utility analyses. Hence, the relevance of the perspectives chosen should be taken into account when carrying out an economic evaluation. This systematic review demonstrates that the results of economic evaluations can be affected by different methods available for estimating non-healthcare costs.

Protocol for a longitudinal study of melatonin therapy and cost effectiveness analysis in stimulant-treated children with ADHD and insomnia: An N-of-1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Children with ADHD and sleep problems have more caregiver deficits and decreased school attendance than children with ADHD but without a sleep problem. We conducted an N-of-1 trial of melatonin for children with ADHD on stimulants. As a follow-up study, we aim to conduct a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of melatonin therapy by comparing costs of this condition (of using melatonin) to costs of the baseline condition (usual care with no N-of-1 trial). METHODS: The CEA will compare participants who remained on melatonin vs those who chose to cease melatonin. Costs will be determined by medication cost to the caregiver(s), school/work absences, other sleep remedy costs, and health service utilization costs, including incidentals like parking. These costs will be determined at baseline, end of 6-week trial, and 6 months post-trial. We will also calculate Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALY) based on responses to PedsQL or SF-12v2 for patients and caregiver(s) and assess differences between remaining on melatonin or not; and assess the intermediate-term effectiveness and adverse effects of melatonin at 6 months. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that shorter sleep-onset-latency will be associated with improved QALYs for patients and caregivers. We also expect that targeting melatonin to positive responders will be cost effective both for individuals and society. Cost per QALY for positive responders to melatonin is useful for doctors when creating treatment plans since melatonin is not an over-the-counter pharmaceutical in Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614000542695.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Improving clinicians' diagnostic and communication Skills on Antibiotic prescribing Appropriateness in patients with acute Cough in primary care in CATalonia (the ISAAC-CAT study): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite their marginal benefit, about 60% of acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs) are currently treated with antibiotics in Catalonia. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of a continuous disease-focused intervention (C-reactive protein [CRP]) and an illness-focused intervention (enhancement of communication skills to optimise doctor-patient consultations) on antibiotic prescribing in patients with ALRTIs in Catalan primary care centres. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomised, factorial, controlled trial aimed at including 20 primary care centres (N = 2940 patients) with patients older than 18 years of age presenting for a first consultation with an ALRTI will be included in the study. Primary care centres will be identified on the basis of socioeconomic data and antibiotic consumption. Centres will be randomly assigned according to hierarchical clustering to any of four trial arms: usual care, CRP testing, enhanced communication skills backed up with patient leaflets, or combined interventions. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis will be performed from the societal and national healthcare system perspectives, and the time horizon of the analysis will be 1 year. Two qualitative studies (pre- and post-clinical trial) aimed to identify the expectations and concerns of patients with ALRTIs and the barriers and facilitators of each intervention arm will be run. Family doctors and nurses assigned to the interventions will participate in a 2-h training workshop before the inception of the trial and will receive a monthly intervention-tailored training module during the year of the trial period. Primary outcomes will be antibiotic use within the first 6 weeks, duration of moderate to severe cough, and the quality-adjusted life-years. Secondary outcomes will be duration of illness and severity of cough measured using a symptom diary, healthcare re-consultations, hospital admissions, and complications. Healthcare costs will be considered and expressed in 2021 euros (year foreseen to finalise the study) of the current year of the analysis. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses will be carried out. DISCUSSION: The ISAAC-CAT project will contribute to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of different strategies for more appropriate antibiotic prescribing that are currently out of the scope of the actual clinical guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03931577.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Using the JBR.10-Based 15-Gene Expression Signature to Guide Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Early Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) improved survival in the NCIC Clinical Trials Group JBR.10 trial of resected stage IB/II non-small-cell lung cancer. A prognostic 15-gene expression signature was developed, which may also predict for benefit from ACT. An exploratory economic analysis was conducted to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of using the 15-gene signature in guiding ACT decisions. METHODS: A decision analytic model was populated by study patients with quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tumor profiling, current costs, and quality-adjusted survival. Analysis was performed over the 6-year follow-up from the perspective of the Canadian public health care system in 2015 Canadian dollars (discounted 5%/year). Incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were determined for ACT versus observation using clinical stage, gene signature, or a combined approach to select treatment. RESULTS: The mean survival gain of ACT versus observation was higher using the gene signature (1.86 years) compared with clinical stage (1.28 years). Although more costly, ACT guided by the gene signature remained cost-effective at $10,421/life-year gained (95% confidence interval [CI], $466-$19,568 Canadian), comparable to stage-directed selection ($7081/life-year gained; 95% CI, -$2370 to $14,721; P = .52). Incremental cost-utility ratios were $13,452/quality-adjusted life-year (95% CI, $373-$31,949) and $9194/quality-adjusted life-year (95% CI, -$4104 to $23,952), respectively (P = .53). Comparing the standard and test-and-treat approaches, use of the gene signature did not significantly alter survival compared with the standard strategy, but it reduced the ACT rate by 25%. CONCLUSION: If validated, the use of the 15-gene expression signature to select patients for ACT may increase the survival gain of treatment in patients with high-risk stage IB/II non-small-cell lung cancer, while avoiding toxicities in low-risk patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Maintenance Hemodialysis in Japan.

The cost-effectiveness according to primary disease or dialysis duration has never been analyzed with respect to maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). Study candidates were > 20 years of age and had received hemodialysis for at least 6 months. Hemodialysis patients were prospectively observed for 36 months, and patient utility was assessed based on the Euro-QOL 5-dimensions (EQ-5D), from which the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. Medical costs were calculated based on medical service fees. The cost-effectiveness defined as the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) was analyzed from a social perspective. A total of 29 patients (mean age; 59.9 ± 13.1 years) undergoing 437 dialysis sessions were analyzed. Utility based upon the EQ-5D score was 0.75 ± 0.21, and the estimated total medical cost for one year of MHD treatment was 4.52 ± 0.88 US$10 000. ICUR was 6.88 ± 4.47 US$10 000/QALY on average, and when comparing ICUR based on the causes of kidney failure, the value for diabetic nephropathy was found to be higher than that for glomerulonephritis (8.17 ± 6.28 vs. 6.82 ± 4.07). ICUR after 36 months observation increased mainly in the patients below 65 years of age (All; P < 0.05, <65; P < 0.01, 65≤; not significant). MHD is a treatment that could improve the socioeconomic state of elderly patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), but the ICUR for diabetic nephropathy was higher than that for glomerulonephritis.

Cost-effectiveness versus Cost-Utility Analyses: What Are the Motives Behind Using Each and How Do Their Results Differ?-A Polish Example.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the use of cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis in health technology assessment in Poland. METHODS: We analyzed all the submissions (155) made to the Polish Agency for Health Technology Assessment in the period 2007 to 2011, with 316 intervention-comparator comparisons reporting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) or incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). We compared ICERs and ICURs when both were reported (31%), determined factors associated with reporting one or the other, and tested the precision of their assessment. RESULTS: In 13% of the cases, ICER and ICUR led to different decisions (were on opposite sides of the willingness-to-pay threshold). Cost-effectiveness analyses were more frequently performed in oncology, offering at the same time more favorable results. It was also more frequent for longer time-horizon models, although then ICER values were on average higher. CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, cost-utility analysis is a usual approach of increasing popularity. Interestingly, although assessing ICUR requires additional assumptions, it is estimated more precisely (reported ranges of values in sensitivity analyses are narrower), especially in oncology. ICER and ICUR disagree more often than previously shown in literature. There seem to be no clear signs of biases in submissions (selecting whether to present ICER or ICUR on the basis of their values), but the current study is limited because only the values presented by manufacturers in the submission are available.

Health Economics of Antibiotics.

Antibiotics have made a significant contribution to improving patient health, but policy makers and health care payers are concerned about the costs of antibiotics in addition to their effectiveness. This paper aims to assess the value of antibiotics by examining incremental cost-utility ratios of antibiotics. Evidence was derived from cost-utility analyses of antibiotics included in the Tufts-New England Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry through September 2009. The analysis included 85 incremental cost-utility ratios from 23 cost-utility analyses. The findings showed that 38.8% of incremental cost-utility ratios related to dominant antibiotics (i.e., more effective and less costly than the comparator); 45.9% referred to antibiotics that improved effectiveness, but also increased costs; and 15.3% related to dominated antibiotics (i.e., less effective and more costly than the comparator). The median ratio was 748 € per quality-adjusted life year. Using threshold values of 20,000 € per quality-adjusted life year and 50,000 € per quality-adjusted life year, the probability that an antibiotic provides value for money was 64% and 67%, respectively. The current evidence base suggests that the majority of antibiotics provide value for money and that antibiotics can aid decision makers to attain further population health improvements, whilst containing pharmaceutical expenditures.