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.

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.