No abstract

To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of letermovir versus no prophylaxis for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in adult cytomegalovirus‐seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) recipients. A decision model for 100 patients was developed to estimate the probabilities of cytomegalovirus infection, cytomegalovirus disease, various other complications, and death in patients receiving letermovir versus no prophylaxis. The probabilities of clinical outcomes were based on the pivotal phase 3 trial of letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis versus placebo in adult cytomegalovirus‐seropositive recipients of an allo‐HCT. Costs of prophylaxis with letermovir and of each clinical outcome were derived from published sources or the trial clinical study reports. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used in the model. One‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainty around the base‐case analysis. In this model, the use of letermovir prophylaxis would lead to an increase of QALYs (619) and direct medical cost ($1  733  794) compared with no prophylaxis (578 QALYs; $710  300) in cytomegalovirus‐seropositive recipients of an allo‐HCT. Letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost‐effective option versus no prophylaxis with base‐case analysis ICER $25 046/QALY gained. One‐way sensitivity analysis showed the most influential parameter was mortality rate. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 92% probability of letermovir producing an ICER below the commonly accepted willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100 000/QALY gained. Based on this model, letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost‐effective option in adult cytomegalovirus‐seropositive recipients of an allo‐HCT.

No abstract

Introduction The clinical efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (vHABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) has been demonstrated in the phase III randomised controlled trial ASPECT-NP. However, there are no published data on the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam for vHABP/VABP. These nosocomial infections are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, and are increasingly complicated by growing rates of resistance and the inappropriate use of antimicrobials. This study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem for the treatment of vHABP/VABP in a US hospital setting. Methods A short-term decision tree followed by a long-term Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the treatment of patients with vHABP/VABP. Pathogen susceptibility and clinical efficacy were informed by the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database and ASPECT-NP, respectively. A US healthcare sector perspective was adopted, capturing direct costs borne by third-party payers or integrated health systems, and direct health effects for patients. Results In the confirmed treatment setting (post-susceptibility results), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem was US$12,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); this reduced when used in the early treatment setting (before susceptibility results) at $4775/QALY. Conclusion Ceftolozane/tazobactam represents a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients with vHABP/VABP versus meropenem when used in either the confirmed or early treatment setting; with increased cost-effectiveness shown in the early setting. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00436-4.

Introduction: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP and VABP) are associated with significant healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This a priori, exploratory, secondary analysis from the ASPECT-NP clinical trial evaluated resource utilization among patients with ventilated HABP (vHABP)/VABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam or meropenem. Methods: This analysis used data from the randomized, double-blind, noninferiority phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial of patients with vHABP/VABP randomized to receive ceftolozane/tazobactam 3 g (ceftolozane 2 g/ tazobactam 1 g) or meropenem 1 g for 8-14 days. Day 28 outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and time to mechanical ventilation extubation in the microbiological intention-to-treat (mITT) population and in an HCRU population. The HCRU population, a subset of patients from the mITT population that were alive at day 28, was used to remove resource use bias influenced by mortality rates. Results: Ceftolozane/tazobactam-treated versus meropenem-treated patients, respectively, had fewer deaths (20.1% vs. 25.5%), fewer hospital discharges (30.7% vs. 32.4%), and higher ICU discharges (60.0% vs. 58.3%) and extubations (51.9% vs. 48.2%) by day 28. In the HCRU population, adjusted LOS differences (95% confidence intervals) for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem were 0.1 (-1.4 to 1.6) hospitalization days,-1.4 (-2.9 to 0.2) ICU days, and-0.9 (-2.4 to 0.7) mechanical ventilation days. Patterns were similar among the VABP and Pseudomonas aeruginosa subgroups. Conclusion: Similar 28-day resource utilization outcomes were observed between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the mITT population of patients from ASPECT-NP with vHABP/VABP due to gram-negative pathogens. ASPECT-NP was not powered to detect differences in resource utilization outcomes between treatment groups; however, Digital Features This article is published with digital features to facilitate understanding of the article. To view digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/ 10.6084/m9.figshare.12938396.