Dataset Information

Potential Cost-Savings with Once-Daily Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic versus Vancomycin in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Omadacycline is an oral and intravenous (IV) once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic that was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). In 2 phase 3 clinical trials, IV-to-oral switch and oral-only administration of omadacycline achieved the primary end points of noninferiority compared with linezolid in treating patients with ABSSSI.

Objective

To estimate the potential cost-savings with bioequivalent IV-to-oral antibiotics, such as omadacycline, compared with the standard of care with IV vancomycin by avoiding hospitalizations and reducing hospital stays in patients presenting from the emergency department for ABSSSI treatment.

Methods

We used hospital avoidance models to examine the potential cost-savings of managing patients with ABSSSI and no or limited comorbidities and without life-threatening conditions by using omadacycline in the outpatient setting compared with the current standard of care. Early hospital discharge models were used to evaluate the hospital stay reduction that would be required to be achieved with omadacycline treatment relative to IV vancomycin to confer cost-savings compared with standard of care among patients with ABSSSI and ?2 comorbidities but no life-threatening conditions.

Results

In the hospital stay avoidance models, cost-savings may be realized by using therapeutically bioequivalent IV-to-oral antibiotics, such as omadacycline, compared with inpatient treatment with IV vancomycin. Based on a sensitivity analysis, further savings could be possible with outpatient administration of omadacycline, even if 20% of omadacycline outpatients were subsequently admitted and incurred the full inpatient cost, with no reimbursement penalties. Of more than 300 patients, only 1 was admitted to the hospital after a full course of omadacycline in the oral-only clinical trial. In the early hospital discharge models, the maximum cost-minimizing daily expense of omadacycline varied from $173 to $936, depending on the presence of active comorbidities or systemic symptoms, hospital stay reduction, and model perspective.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the targeted use of antibiotics with bioequivalent IV-to-oral formulations, such as omadacycline, for select patients with ABSSSI may lead to cost-savings compared with inpatient IV vancomycin treatment by shifting care to the outpatient setting or by facilitating earlier hospital discharge among hospitalized patients.

SUBMITTER: LaPensee K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6322591 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Potential Cost-Savings with Once-Daily Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic versus Vancomycin in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

LaPensee Ken K Lodise Thomas T

American health & drug benefits 20181201 9

<h4>Background</h4>Omadacycline is an oral and intravenous (IV) once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic that was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). In 2 phase 3 clinical trials, IV-to-oral switch and oral-only administration of omadacycline achieved the primary end points of noninferiority compared with linezolid in treating patients with ABSSSI.<h4>Objective</h4>To estimate the ...[more]

PMID: 30746017

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe most frequently prescribed regimens for the treatment of hospitalized adults with suspected or documented community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP), an acute bacterial infection of the pulmonary parenchyma, are ceftriaxone plus a macrolide, or a respiratory fluoroquinolone. Although these regimens are consistent with expert guidelines, there are growing concerns regarding their safety and efficacy. Omadacycline is a once-daily antibiotic with oral and intravenous (IV) formulations; it was recently approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with CABP.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost impact of shortening hospital stay or avoiding hospitalization when using a treatment with an IV and an oral formulation, such as omadacycline, versus an IV-only drug regimen, such as ceftriaxone plus a macrolide, in adults with CABP who are not candidates for respiratory fluoroquinolone therapy.MethodsWe developed 2 conceptual healthcare decision models to identify potential cost-saving opportunities in hospitalized adults with CABP who receive omadacycline versus ceftriaxone plus a macrolide. The early hospital discharge model examined the cost impact of shifting patients with CABP from inpatient treatment with ceftriaxone plus a macrolide to inpatient IV omadacycline treatment and early hospital discharge with oral omadacycline. The hospital-avoidance model examined the cost impact of omadacycline treatment in the outpatient setting in patients with CABP who have low disease severity. The models defined the upper range of the daily acquisition cost for omadacycline that conferred cost-savings relative to inpatient treatment with ceftriaxone plus a macrolide.ResultsIn the early hospital discharge model, omadacycline showed cost-savings with a 2-day hospital stay reduction if the daily cost of omadacycline was ?$836, almost twice its wholesale acquisition cost. In the hospital-avoidance model, the daily omadacycline thresholds that still conferred cost-savings relative to inpatient ceftriaxone plus a macrolide ranged from $1302 to $1334, based on a daily wholesale acquisition cost of $450 for omadacycline, depending on the potential use of the emergency department and an observation unit.ConclusionThe study findings show that the targeted use of omadacycline for the treatment of select patient populations with CABP could result in cost-savings relative to inpatient treatment with ceftriaxone plus a macrolide.

Project description:BackgroundThe treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) is challenging and many patients do not receive adequate first-line therapy. REACH (REtrospective Study to Assess the Clinical Management of Patients With Moderate-to-Severe cSSTI or Community-Acquired Pneumonia in the Hospital Setting) was a retrospective observational study of cSSTI patients in real-life settings in European hospitals. In this analysis, we review characteristics and outcomes of patients with an early response (≤72 hours) compared with those without an early response to treatment. We also compare the results according to two differing definitions of early response, one of which (Definition 1) requires resolution of fever within 72 hours, in line with previous US FDA guidelines.MethodsPatients were adults hospitalized with cSSTIs 2010-2011 and requiring treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Clinical management, clinical outcomes and healthcare resource use were assessed using a descriptive analysis approach.ResultsThe analysis set included 600 patients, of which 363 showed early response with Definition 1 and 417 with Definition 2. Initial treatment modification was frequent, and highest in patients without early response (48.1% with Definition 1). Patients without early response were more likely to have diabetes than those with early response (31.6% vs. 22.9%, respectively) and to suffer from more severe disease (e.g. skin necrosis: 14.8% and 7.7%, respectively), to be infected with difficult-to-treat microorganisms and to have recurrent infections. Furthermore, patients without early response had a higher rate of adverse clinical outcomes (e.g. septic shock) and higher use of healthcare resources. The results obtained with the two definitions for early response were largely similar.ConclusionsThis study highlights the significance of early evaluation of patients in hospitals, in potentially preventing prolonged use of inappropriate or ineffective antibacterial therapy.Trial registrationNCT01293435 .

Dataset Information

Potential Cost-Savings with Once-Daily Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic versus Vancomycin in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Potential Cost-Savings with Once-Daily Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic versus Vancomycin in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets