Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Antimicrobial Prescribing in the Treatment of Clostridioides Difficile Infection in England.
Journal
PharmacoEconomics - open
ISSN: 2509-4254
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoecon Open
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101700780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
accepted:
03
05
2023
medline:
12
6
2023
pubmed:
12
6
2023
entrez:
12
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
An economic model was developed with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'Managing Common Infections' (MCI) Committee to evaluate the cost effectiveness of different antibiotic treatment sequences for treating Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in England. The model consisted of a 90-day decision tree followed by a lifetime cohort Markov model. Efficacy data were taken from a network meta-analysis and published literature, while cost, utility and mortality data were taken from published literature. A treatment sequence was defined as a first-line intervention or a different second-line intervention, and used constant third- and fourth-line interventions. The possible first- and second-line interventions were vancomycin, metronidazole, teicoplanin and fidaxomicin (standard and extended regimens). Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated and were used to run a fully incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Threshold analysis was conducted around pricing. Sequences including teicoplanin, fidaxomicin (extended regimen) and second-line metronidazole were excluded based on recommendations from the committee. The final pairwise comparison was between first-line vancomycin and second-line fidaxomicin (VAN-FID), and the reverse (FID-VAN). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for FID-VAN compared with VAN-FID was £156,000 per QALY gained, and FID-VAN had a 0.2% likelihood of being cost effective at a £20,000 threshold. First-line vancomycin and second-line fidaxomicin was the most cost-effective treatment sequence at the NICE threshold for treating CDI in England. The main limitation of this study was that the initial cure and recurrence rates of each intervention were applied constantly across each line of treatment and each round of recurrence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
An economic model was developed with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'Managing Common Infections' (MCI) Committee to evaluate the cost effectiveness of different antibiotic treatment sequences for treating Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in England.
METHODS
METHODS
The model consisted of a 90-day decision tree followed by a lifetime cohort Markov model. Efficacy data were taken from a network meta-analysis and published literature, while cost, utility and mortality data were taken from published literature. A treatment sequence was defined as a first-line intervention or a different second-line intervention, and used constant third- and fourth-line interventions. The possible first- and second-line interventions were vancomycin, metronidazole, teicoplanin and fidaxomicin (standard and extended regimens). Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated and were used to run a fully incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Threshold analysis was conducted around pricing.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sequences including teicoplanin, fidaxomicin (extended regimen) and second-line metronidazole were excluded based on recommendations from the committee. The final pairwise comparison was between first-line vancomycin and second-line fidaxomicin (VAN-FID), and the reverse (FID-VAN). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for FID-VAN compared with VAN-FID was £156,000 per QALY gained, and FID-VAN had a 0.2% likelihood of being cost effective at a £20,000 threshold.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
First-line vancomycin and second-line fidaxomicin was the most cost-effective treatment sequence at the NICE threshold for treating CDI in England. The main limitation of this study was that the initial cure and recurrence rates of each intervention were applied constantly across each line of treatment and each round of recurrence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37306930
doi: 10.1007/s41669-023-00420-3
pii: 10.1007/s41669-023-00420-3
pmc: PMC10471526
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
739-750Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 Nov;69(11):2901-12
pubmed: 25096079
Value Health. 2015 Jul;18(5):655-62
pubmed: 26297094
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Jun 27;24:100420
pubmed: 32637898
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Apr 8;68(8):1351-1358
pubmed: 30957161
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Jan 18;66(3):355-362
pubmed: 29106516
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Dec;18 Suppl 6:21-7
pubmed: 23121551
Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;58(11):1507-14
pubmed: 24692533
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999 Jan;43(1):73-6
pubmed: 9869568
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1994 Apr;4 Suppl 1:1-30
pubmed: 18611626
Arch Surg. 2009 May;144(5):433-9; discussion 439-40
pubmed: 19451485
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Sep;18(9):1035-1044
pubmed: 30025913
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Dec;20(12):1343-51
pubmed: 25366338
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Sep 1;72(9):2647-2656
pubmed: 28633368
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1050:117-135
pubmed: 29383667