Ceftaroline fosamil use in hospitalized patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: Budget impact analysis from a hospital perspective

Huang, Xingyue; Beresford, Eric; Lodise, Thomas P.; Friedland, H. David

doi:10.2146/ajhp120438

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 1 presents the seven key elements of the design of a budget-impact model included in the eight budget-impact analyses for acute conditions. Of the eight analyses, four used a simple cost-calculator model structure [22][23][24][25] and four used more complex decision-modeling techniques [26][27][28][29]. The cost-calculator approach is appropriate for acute conditions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three of the models [23,24,29] estimated the incident population starting from the population for a hypothetical health plan and applying incidence and diagnosis rates. Four models for inpatients used estimated or hypothetical numbers of inpatients with the specific condition [22,25,27,28], and one model just assumed a hypothetical number of patients with the condition of interest who might be treated on an inpatient or outpatient basis [26].…”

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six of the eight studies compared the current treatment mix with a new treatment mix including the new drug. In these studies, the new drug took treatment share from all drugs [24,28], one drug [25,29], or a subset of the drugs [26,27] in the current treatment mix. One study [23] just compared two of the three drugs used for the indication with each other, and a second study [22] compared a combination regimen made up of a current drug plus a mix of backbone treatments with the new drug plus a different mix of backbone treatments.…”

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study included acquisition, administration, and monitoring [27]; three studies included acquisition and adverse events [22,25,29]; one study included acquisition and administration [23]; one study included acquisition and monitoring [26]; and one study included acquisition only [24]. The studies that did not include administration costs were either for oral drugs [24,26,29] or reported no difference in these costs [22,25].…”

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three of the studies did not include these costs [23][24][25], with two of them stating that they were excluded because there would be no difference in disease outcomes [23,25] and the third hospitalbased study assuming days on treatment did not change with addition of the new drug regimen [24]. Three of the four hospital-based studies included changes in costs attributable to changes in hospital length of stay [22,27,28], with one study also including hospital procedures [22]. Two of the decision-analytic models included changes in disease-related costs [26,29].…”

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

Mauskopf

Earnshaw

2016

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A budget-impact analysis is required by many jurisdictions when adding a new drug to the formulary. However, previous reviews have indicated that adherence to methodological guidelines is variable. In this methodological review, we assess the extent to which US budgetimpact analyses for new drugs use recommended practices. We describe recommended practice for seven key elements in the design of a budget-impact analysis. Targeted literature searches for US studies reporting estimates of the budget impact of a new drug were performed and we prepared a summary of how each study addressed the seven key elements. The primary finding from this review is that recommended practice is not followed in many budgetimpact analyses. For example, we found that growth in the treated population size and/or changes in disease-related costs expected during the model time horizon for more effective treatments was not included in several analyses for chronic conditions. In addition, all drug-related costs were not captured in the majority of the models. Finally, for most studies, one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were very limited, and the ranges used in one-way sensitivity analyses were frequently arbitrary percentages rather than being data driven. The conclusions from our review are that changes in population size, disease severity mix, and/or disease-related costs should be properly accounted for to avoid over-or underestimating the budget impact. Since each budget holder might have different perspectives and different values for many of the input parameters, it is also critical for published budget-impact analyses to include extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses based on realistic input values. Key Points for Decision MakersPublished budget-impact analyses do not always estimate changes in the treated population size and related changes in the disease-related costs of drugs for chronic conditions that reduce mortality rates or slow disease progression, which may result in overor underestimates of the budget impact of a new drug.Treatment switching or discontinuation may not be appropriately included in many published budgetimpact analyses.Sensitivity and scenario analyses presented in published budget-impact analyses are typically too limited to allow a budget holder to assess the likely budget impact for their health plan.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

Mauskopf

Earnshaw

2016

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Older Adults

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use of Oritavancin in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Patients Receiving Intravenous Antibiotics: A US Hospital Budget Impact Analysis

Jensen¹,

Lodise

Fan

et al. 2015

Clin Drug Investig

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and ObjectiveNearly 10 % of all US hospital admissions are attributed to acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). While most antibacterials used to treat these infections require multi-day and multi-dose regimens, a single-dose treatment is now available. The objective of this analysis is to estimate the annual budget impact of using single-dose oritavancin in patients with moderate to severe ABSSSIs receiving intravenous methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-active antibacterials from a US hospital perspective.MethodsA decision-analytic model based on current clinical practice was developed to estimate the economic impact of oritavancin. Utilization of antibacterials and rates of hospital admission were derived from the Premier Research Database. Demographic and clinical data were informed by the published literature and 2014 wholesale drug acquisition costs were used. Other costs were based on the published literature and Medicare National Limitation amounts. All costs were inflated to 2014 US dollars. Two base-case scenarios were considered: one for hospitals with ambulatory services and one for hospitals without ambulatory services.ResultsFor a US hospital with ambulatory services with 1000 ABSSSI patients receiving intravenous MRSA antibiotics annually, use of oritavancin in 26 % of patients is estimated to reduce the total annual budget by 12.9 % (US$1.23 million), or approximately US$1234.67 per patient. Total inpatient costs will be reduced by 22.3 % (US$1.40 million) and outpatient costs will increase slightly by 1.7 % (US$55,310). Pharmaceutical cost increases are offset by savings in the inpatient setting from fewer hospital admissions. Hospitals without ambulatory services are estimated to receive overall cost savings of 9.3 % (US$0.63 million).ConclusionUse of single-dose oritavancin in select ABSSSI patients with suspected or confirmed MRSA involvement is estimated to save US hospitals approximately 9.3–12.9 % per year by reducing hospital admissions and lowering drug administration burden.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40261-015-0365-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Ceftaroline fosamil use in hospitalized patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: Budget impact analysis from a hospital perspective

Abstract: Model estimates indicated that adding ceftaroline fosamil to the hospital formulary would not have a negative effect on a hospital's budget for ABSSSI treatment.

Cited by 9 publications

References 19 publications

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Older Adults

Use of Oritavancin in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Patients Receiving Intravenous Antibiotics: A US Hospital Budget Impact Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About