Introduction: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL), a combination b-lactam antibiotic (imipenem) with a novel b-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 costeffectiveness 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.
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.
Background Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality; this is often worse among patients who experience a delay in receiving appropriate therapy. Initial treatment choice and early adjustment occurs prior to pathogen susceptibility results and may be based on suspicion of a resistant infection and/or clinical deterioration. This study assesses the cost effectiveness of Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) in an early adjustment prescribing scenario compared to PIP/TAZ for patients with high risk of resistant infection from a US perspective. Methods Although early adjustment data was not directly available, pathogen susceptibility data derived from 2017-19 Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART) surveillance program was applied to estimate patients who may have clinical worsening, likely due to a resistant infection. The efficacy and safety data for IMI/REL and PIP/TAZ were informed by the modified intent-to-treat population of a phase III trial (RESTORE-IMI 2). Our analysis comprised a decision tree (reflecting hospitalization period) followed by a yearly Markov model (capturing lifetime impact). The decision tree captured short-term outcomes (clinical cure, all-cause mortality, and hospital resource use). The Markov model translated short term outcomes into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of model results. Results Compared with PIP/TAZ, IMI/REL in the early adjustment setting was associated with increased costs (&10,087 per patient) but a higher cure (+7%) and lower mortality (-3%) rate. The resulting ICER (&12,173/QALY) falls well below typical US willingness to pay thresholds. Model drivers were the SMART-based susceptibility profiles and RESTORE-IMI 2 response and mortality rates. Conclusion Our results suggest that IMI/REL, used as an early adjustment option, could be considered cost effective for patients with worsening HABP/VABP in a US setting, when compared against PIP/TAZ. Disclosures Jaesh Naik, MSc, BresMed Health Solutions (Employee) Lewis Ralph, MSc, Bresmed (Employee) Ryan J. Dillon, MSc, Merck & Co. Inc., (Employee, Shareholder) Joe Yang, Ph.D., Merck & Co (Employee)
203 Background: Anti-EGFR treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Latin America includes cetuximab or panitumumab, added to chemotherapy (cet+CT and pan+CT, respectively). Adverse event (AE) profiles for each regimen may influence the treatment decision. This study aimed to estimate the associated financial impact of AE management in three countries: Argentina (AR), Brazil (BR) and Panama (PA) from a healthcare payer perspective. Methods: We revised a published Microsoft Excel-based economic model to calculate average patient- and population-level costs from a payer perspective of mCRC AE management for first-line cet+CT and pan+CT treatment, using AE frequency and severity data derived from the authorization relevant FDA prescribing information (PI), multiplied by the country-specific unit costs of managing AEs. Costs of AE management were obtained from publicly available sources in each country and converted to US dollars (USD). Country-specific market research data were applied to calculate costs at the eligible mCRC population level. The model structure and input parameters were endorsed by local practising oncologists. Results: A 17.5% (all-grade) and 31.6% (grade 3-4) lower average per patient AE frequency were estimated from the PI, for cet+CT vs pan+CT. Cost results are presented in the table. Projected AE management costs of cet+CT for the eligible mCRC population are $297,643 (AR), $124,981 (BR) and $65,895 (PA), annually, reducing current annual estimated AE costs by $42,181 (AR), $8,548 (BR) and $4,691 (PA). Conclusions: According to the average estimated AE frequencies, patients treated with cet+CT are expected to experience fewer AEs than with pan+CT. According to our analyses, the lower frequency rates could result in lower overall and severe AEs’ management costs, resulting in 12.4% (AR), 6.4% (BR) and 6.6% (PA) lower costs of AE management for cet+CT versus pan+CT.[Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.