Dataset Information

Cost-Saving Opportunities with an Oral and Intravenous Once-Daily Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic for Hospitalized Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: Findings from Decision-Analytic Models.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Objective

To 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

In 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.

Conclusion

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Lodise T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6684047 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun-Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Saving Opportunities with an Oral and Intravenous Once-Daily Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic for Hospitalized Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: Findings from Decision-Analytic Models.

Lodise Thomas T LaPensee Kenneth K

American health & drug benefits 20190601 4

<h4>Background</h4>The 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) ...[more]

PMID: 31428234

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOmadacycline 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.ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionThese 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.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a high incidence disease resulting in about 260,000 hospital admissions per year in Germany, more than myocardial infarction or stroke. Worldwide, CAP is the most frequent infectious disease with high lethality ranging from 1.2 % in those 20-29 years old to over 10 % in patients older than 70 years, even in industrial nations. CAP poses numerous medical challenges, which the PROGRESS (Pneumonia Research Network on Genetic Resistance and Susceptibility for the Evolution of Severe Sepsis) network aims to tackle: Operationalization of disease severity throughout the course of disease, outcome prediction for hospitalized patients and prediction of transitions from uncomplicated CAP to severe CAP, and finally, to CAP with sepsis and organ failure as a life-threatening condition. It is a major aim of PROGRESS to understand and predict patient heterogeneity regarding outcome in the hospital and to develop novel treatment concepts.MethodsPROGRESS was designed as a clinical, observational, multi-center study of patients with CAP requiring hospitalization. More than 1600 patients selected for low burden of co-morbidities have been enrolled, aiming at a total of 3000. Course of disease, along with therapy, was closely monitored by daily assessments and long-term follow-up. Daily blood samples allow in depth molecular-genetic characterization of patients. We established a well-organized workflow for sample logistics and a comprehensive data management system to collect and manage data from more than 50 study centers in Germany and Austria. Samples are stored in a central biobank and clinical data are stored in a central data base which also integrates all data from molecular assessments.DiscussionWith the PROGRESS study, we established a comprehensive data base of high quality clinical and molecular data allowing investigation of pressing research questions regarding CAP. In-depth molecular characterization will contribute to the discovery of disease mechanisms and establishment of diagnostic and predictive biomarkers. A strength of PROGRESS is the focus on younger patients with low burden of co-morbidities, allowing a more direct look at host biology with less confounding. As a resulting limitation, insights from PROGRESS will require validation in representative patient cohorts to assess clinical utility.Trial registrationThe PROGRESS study was retrospectively registered on May 24(th), 2016 with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02782013.

Dataset Information

Cost-Saving Opportunities with an Oral and Intravenous Once-Daily Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic for Hospitalized Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: Findings from Decision-Analytic Models.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Cost-Saving Opportunities with an Oral and Intravenous Once-Daily Aminomethylcycline Antibiotic for Hospitalized Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: Findings from Decision-Analytic Models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets