Abstract
Objective: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam compared to colistin-imipenem in the treatment of hospitalized patients with Gram-negative bacterial infections caused by imipenem-resistant pathogens. The perspective was both that of the National Health Service (NHS) and the social one.
Methodology: A mixed model was developed to simulate a cohort of patients capable of highlighting the impacts of the disease on the quality of life and the absorption of economic resources of the patients in analysis. Modelled patients were those with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP), complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) or complicated urinal tract infection (cUTI) caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative (GN) pathogens. The model begins with a short-term decision tree describing possible treatment routes and outcomes for patients during the hospitalization period. Patients who are healed in the decision tree enter the long-term Markov model, designed to capture the follow-up costs and health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients healed over their lifetime.
Results: The analysis, conducted on a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients, highlights how the use of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is advantageous both in terms of diagnosis and treatment in the short term and in terms of cost-effectiveness. In fact, it is dominant compared to colistin-imipenem both in the NHS and in the social perspective since, compared to an average saving of € 2,800.15 and € 3,174.63 respectively, it would generate an increase of 4.76 years of life and of 4.12 QALYs per patient.
Reference35 articles.
1. Cassini A, Högberg LD, Plachouras D, et al; Burden of AMR Collaborative Group. Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the EU and the European Economic Area in 2015: a population-level modelling analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):56-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30605-4 PMID:30409683
2. Fondazione House of Ambrosetti. Rapporto Meridiano Sanità 2017. Online: https://acadmin.ambrosetti.eu/dompdf/crea_wmark.php?doc=L2F0dGFjaG1lbnRzL3BkZi9yYXBwb3J0by1tczIwMTctMjAyMTA0MDIxMC5wZGY%3D&id=11962&muid=corporate (Accessed August 2022).
3. Antibacterial agents in clinical development - An analysis of the antibacterial clinical development pipeline. Online https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330420/9789240000193-eng.pdf (Accessed August 2022)
4. Istituto Superiore di Sanità. Antibiotico-resistenza. Aspetti epidemiologici in Italia. Online https://www.epicentro.iss.it/antibiotico-resistenza/epidemiologia-italia (Accessed August 2022)
5. Circolare Min. Sal. del 3/12/2019. Rapid Risk Assessment dell’ECDC: enterobatteri resistenti ai carbapenemi (CRE) 26 settembre 2019. Ten threats to global health in 2019. Online https://www.trovanorme.salute.gov.it/norme/renderNormsanPdf?anno=2019&codLeg=71976&parte=1%20&serie=null (Accessed August 2022)