Cost-minimisation analysis of oritavancin for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections from a United Kingdom perspective.

BACKGROUND: Early discharge (ED) from hospital and outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) are effective approaches for the management of a range of infections, including acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). Strategies that facilitate ED, thereby reducing complications such as healthcare-acquired infection whilst enhancing patient quality of life, are being increasingly adopted in line with good antimicrobial stewardship practice. This study presents a cost-minimisation analysis for the use of oritavancin at ED versus relevant comparators from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal and social services United Kingdom perspective. METHODS: A cost-minimisation model considering adult patients with ABSSSI with suspected or confirmed methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection, was developed based on publicly available NHS costs, practice guidelines for ABSSSI and clinical expert's opinion. Cost of treatment and treatment days were compared for oritavancin at ED to dalbavancin, teicoplanin, daptomycin and linezolid. RESULTS: Following the empiric use of either flucloxacillin or vancomycin in the inpatient setting, oritavancin was compared to OPAT with dalbavancin, teicoplanin and daptomycin, and oral linezolid from day 4 of treatment. Oritavancin at ED reduced treatment duration by 0.8 days and led to cost savings of £281 in comparison to dalbavancin. In comparison to teicoplanin, daptomycin and linezolid, oritavancin reduced treatment duration by 5 days, with marginally higher costs (£446, £137, and £1,434, respectively). CONCLUSION: Oritavancin, used to support ED, is associated with lower costs compared with dalbavancin and reduced treatment duration relative to all comparators. Its use would support an ED approach in MRSA ABSSSI management.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaborem for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae-Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (CRE-KPC) infections in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of vaborem (meropenem-vaborbactam) compared to the best available therapy (BAT) in adult patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae-Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (CRE-KPC) infections from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS). METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis for Vaborem compared to BAT in CRE-KPC patients over a 5 year time horizon. The model structure for Vaborem simulated the clinical pathway of patients with a confirmed CRE-KPC infection. Model inputs for clinical effectiveness were sourced from the TANGO II trial, and published literature. Costs, resource use and utility values associated with CRE-KPC infections in the UK were sourced from the British National Formulary, NHS reference costs and published sources. RESULTS: Over a 5 year time horizon, Vaborem use increased total costs by £5165 and increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.366, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,113 per QALY gained. The ICER was most sensitive to the probability of discharge to long-term care (LTC), the annual cost of LTC and the utility of discharge to home. At thresholds of £20,000/QALY and £30,000/QALY, the probability of Vaborem being cost-effective compared to BAT was 79.85% and 94.93%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Due to a limited cost impact and increase in patient quality of life, vaborem can be considered as a cost-effective treatment option compared to BAT for adult patients with CRE-KPC infections in the UK.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Vaborem in Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) -Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Vaborem is a fixed dose combination of vaborbactam and meropenem with potent activity against target Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) pathogens, optimally developed for Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC). The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Vaborem versus best available therapy (BAT) for the treatment of patients with CRE-KPC associated infections in the Italian setting. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on a decision tree model that simulates the clinical pathway followed by physicians treating patients with a confirmed CRE-KPC infection in a 5-year time horizon. The Italian National Health System perspective was adopted with a 3% discount rate. The clinical inputs were mostly sourced from the phase 3, randomised, clinical trial (TANGO II). Unit costs were retrieved from the Italian official drug pricing list and legislation, while patient resource use was validated by a national expert. Model outcomes included life years (LYs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, incremental costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Vaborem is expected to decrease the burden associated with treatment failure and reduce the need for chronic renal replacement therapy while costs related to drug acquisition and long-term care (due to higher survival) may increase. Treatment with Vaborem versus BAT leads to a gain of 0.475 LYs, 0.384 QALYs, and incremental costs of €3549, resulting in an ICER and ICUR of €7473/LY and €9246/QALY, respectively. Sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of the model and also revealed that the probability of Vaborem being cost-effective reaches 90% when willingness to pay is €15,850/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: In the Italian setting, the introduction of Vaborem will lead to a substantial increase in the quality of life together with a minimal cost impact, therefore Vaborem is expected to be a cost-effective strategy compared to BAT.

Comparative efficacy of delafloxacin for complicated and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: results from a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delafloxacin is a novel fluoroquinolone with broad antibacterial activity against pathogens causing acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to evaluate the relative efficacy of delafloxacin versus other comparators used for managing patients with ABSSSI. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating adults (≥ 18 years) with ABSSSI, complicated SSSI (cSSSI), complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) or severe cellulitis with pathogen of gram-positive, gram-negative, or mixed aetiology. OVID MEDLINE®, Embase, Epub Ahead of Print, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception through 12 April 2019. A feasibility assessment was conducted, followed by an NMA, which was run in a Bayesian framework. The interventions included in the NMA encompassed monotherapy or combination therapies of amoxicillin/clavulanate, ampicillin/sulbactam, ceftaroline, ceftobiprole, dalbavancin, daptomycin, delafloxacin, fusidic acid, iclaprim, linezolid, omadacycline, oxacillin + dicloxacillin, standard therapy, tedizolid, telavancin, tigecycline, vancomycin, vancomycin + aztreonam and vancomycin + linezolid. RESULTS: A feasibility assessment was performed and evidence networks were established for composite clinical response (n = 34 studies), early clinical response (n = 16 studies) and microbiological response (n = 14 studies) in the overall study population, composite clinical response (n = 4 studies) in obese subpopulation and for composite clinical response (n = 18 studies) and microbiological response (n = 14 studies) in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. Delafloxacin performed significantly better than fusidic acid, iclaprim, vancomycin, and ceftobiprole for composite clinical response. Delafloxacin was comparable to dalbavancin, daptomycin, fusidic acid, iclaprim, linezolid, omadacycline, tedizolid, vancomycin, vancomycin + aztreonam and vancomycin + linezolid in the analysis of early clinical response, whereas for microbiological response, delafloxacin was comparable to all interventions. In the obese subpopulation, the results favoured delafloxacin in comparison to vancomycin, whilst the results were comparable with other interventions among the MRSA subpopulation. CONCLUSIONS: Delafloxacin is a promising new antibiotic for ABSSSI demonstrating greater improvement (composite clinical response) compared to ceftobiprole, fusidic acid, iclaprim, telavancin and vancomycin and comparable effectiveness versus standard of care for all outcomes considered in the study.

Cost-consequence analysis for human recombinant growth hormone (r-hGH) treatment administered via different devices in children with growth hormone deficiency in Italy.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-consequence of recombinant human growth hormone (r-hGH) administered via the easypod auto-injector (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) versus conventional devices in children with growth hormone deficiency in Italy. METHODS: A patient-level simulation, decision-analytical model was developed to estimate the average height gains and growth hormone treatment costs for a cohort of boys and girls until their bone maturation age. The calculations were performed using listed growth hormone drug prices (base case) and a scenario analysis was also conducted using published tender prices. Costs were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: Due to improved adherence and earlier identification of poor responders, patients receiving somatropin with easypod gained, on average, 3.2 cm more than patients receiving other r-hGH treatments. Somatropin with easypod had the second highest total cost including wastage (€96,710), but had the second lowest cost per cm gained (€7699/cm). In the scenario analysis, somatropin with easypod had the lowest cost per cm gained (€4708/cm) amongst all of the compared treatments. CONCLUSION: Somatropin with easypod can be cost-saving versus all other r-hGH treatments except Omnitrope when listed drug prices are considered and can be cost-saving versus all other r-hGH treatments when tender drug prices are considered. The easypod device also facilitates cost savings in terms of reduced wastage.