Dataset Information

Cost Effectiveness of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Compared with Meropenem for the Treatment of Patients with Ventilated Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The clinical efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (vHABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) has been demonstrated in the phase III randomised controlled trial ASPECT-NP. However, there are no published data on the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam for vHABP/VABP. These nosocomial infections are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, and are increasingly complicated by growing rates of resistance and the inappropriate use of antimicrobials. This study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem for the treatment of vHABP/VABP in a US hospital setting.

Methods

A short-term decision tree followed by a long-term Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the treatment of patients with vHABP/VABP. Pathogen susceptibility and clinical efficacy were informed by the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database and ASPECT-NP, respectively. A US healthcare sector perspective was adopted, capturing direct costs borne by third-party payers or integrated health systems, and direct health effects for patients.

Results

In the confirmed treatment setting (post-susceptibility results), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem was US$12,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); this reduced when used in the early treatment setting (before susceptibility results) at $4775/QALY.

Conclusion

Ceftolozane/tazobactam represents a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients with vHABP/VABP versus meropenem when used in either the confirmed or early treatment setting; with increased cost-effectiveness shown in the early setting.

SUBMITTER: Naik J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8034281 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCeftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding.MethodsASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors.ResultsOverall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI - 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam.ConclusionsThere were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

Project description:ObjectivesIn the ASPECT-NP trial, ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for treating nosocomial pneumonia; efficacy outcomes by causative pathogen were to be evaluated.MethodsMechanically ventilated participants with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were randomized to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam (2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam) q8h or 1 g meropenem q8h. Lower respiratory tract (LRT) cultures were obtained ≤36 h before first dose; pathogen identification and susceptibility were confirmed at a central laboratory. Prospective secondary per-pathogen endpoints included 28 day all-cause mortality (ACM), and clinical and microbiological response at test of cure (7-14 days after the end of therapy) in the microbiological ITT (mITT) population.ResultsThe mITT population comprised 511 participants (264 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 247 meropenem). Baseline LRT pathogens included Klebsiella pneumoniae (34.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (25.0%) and Escherichia coli (18.2%). Among baseline Enterobacterales isolates, 171/456 (37.5%) were ESBL positive. For Gram-negative baseline LRT pathogens, susceptibility rates were 87.0% for ceftolozane/tazobactam and 93.3% for meropenem. For Gram-negative pathogens, 28 day ACM [52/259 (20.1%) and 62/240 (25.8%)], clinical cure rates [157/259 (60.6%) and 137/240 (57.1%)] and microbiological eradication rates [189/259 (73.0%) and 163/240 (67.9%)] were comparable with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, respectively. Per-pathogen microbiological eradication for Enterobacterales [145/195 (74.4%) and 129/185 (69.7%); 95% CI: -4.37 to 13.58], ESBL-producing Enterobacterales [56/84 (66.7%) and 52/73 (71.2%); 95% CI: -18.56 to 9.93] and P. aeruginosa [47/63 (74.6%) and 41/65 (63.1%); 95% CI: -4.51 to 19.38], respectively, were also comparable.ConclusionsIn mechanically ventilated participants with nosocomial pneumonia owing to Gram-negative pathogens, ceftolozane/tazobactam was comparable with meropenem for per-pathogen 28 day ACM and clinical and microbiological response.

Project description:BackgroundResistant bacterial infections, particularly those caused by gram-negative pathogens, are associated with high mortality and economic burdens. Ceftolozane/tazobactam demonstrated efficacy comparable to meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia in the ASPECT-NP study. One cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States revealed that ceftolozane/tazobactam was cost effective, but no Japanese studies have been conducted. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem for patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia from a health care payer perspective.MethodsA hybrid decision-tree Markov decision-analytic model with a 5-year time horizon were developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years and to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the treatment of patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Clinical outcomes were based on the ASPECT-NP study, costs were based on the national fee schedule of 2022, and utilities were based on published data. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also conducted to assess the robustness of our modeled estimates.ResultsAccording to our base-case analysis, compared with meropenem, ceftolozane/tazobactam increased the total costs by 424,731.22 yen (£2,626.96) and increased the quality-adjusted life-years by 0.17, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2,548,738 yen (£15,763.94) per quality-adjusted life-year gained for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained below 5,000,000 yen (£30,925) for most of the parameters, the incremental net monetary benefit may have been less than 0 depending on the treatment efficacy outcome, especially the cure rate and mortality rate for MEPM and mortality rate for CTZ/TAZ. 53.4% of the PSA simulations demonstrated that CTZ/TAZ was more cost-effective than MEPM was.ConclusionAlthough incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below ￥5,000,000 in base-case analysis, whether ceftolozane/tazobactam is a cost-effective alternative to meropenem for ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in Japan remains uncertain. Future research should examine the unobserved heterogeneity across patient subgroups and decision-making settings, to characterise decision uncertainty and its consequences so as to assess whether additional research is required.

Project description:IntroductionHospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP and VABP) are associated with significant healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This a priori, exploratory, secondary analysis from the ASPECT-NP clinical trial evaluated resource utilization among patients with ventilated HABP (vHABP)/VABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam or meropenem.MethodsThis analysis used data from the randomized, double-blind, noninferiority phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial of patients with vHABP/VABP randomized to receive ceftolozane/tazobactam 3 g (ceftolozane 2 g/tazobactam 1 g) or meropenem 1 g for 8-14 days. Day 28 outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and time to mechanical ventilation extubation in the microbiological intention-to-treat (mITT) population and in an HCRU population. The HCRU population, a subset of patients from the mITT population that were alive at day 28, was used to remove resource use bias influenced by mortality rates.ResultsCeftolozane/tazobactam-treated versus meropenem-treated patients, respectively, had fewer deaths (20.1% vs. 25.5%), fewer hospital discharges (30.7% vs. 32.4%), and higher ICU discharges (60.0% vs. 58.3%) and extubations (51.9% vs. 48.2%) by day 28. In the HCRU population, adjusted LOS differences (95% confidence intervals) for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem were 0.1 (- 1.4 to 1.6) hospitalization days, - 1.4 (- 2.9 to 0.2) ICU days, and - 0.9 (- 2.4 to 0.7) mechanical ventilation days. Patterns were similar among the VABP and Pseudomonas aeruginosa subgroups.ConclusionSimilar 28-day resource utilization outcomes were observed between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the mITT population of patients from ASPECT-NP with vHABP/VABP due to gram-negative pathogens. ASPECT-NP was not powered to detect differences in resource utilization outcomes between treatment groups; however, numerical differences in ICU LOS and duration of mechanical ventilation were noted. Further study is needed to assess resource utilization in the real-world practice setting, especially among patients excluded from ASPECT-NP, including those with resistant P. aeruginosa infections.Trial registrationsClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02070757, registered February 25, 2014; EudraCT: 2012-002862-11.

Project description:ObjectivesMultiple randomized controlled trials exploring the outcomes of patients with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia and hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia have noted that hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia patients who require subsequent ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia suffered higher mortality than either those who did not (nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia) or had ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. We examined the epidemiology and outcomes of all three conditions in a large U.S. database.DesignRetrospective cohort.SettingTwo hundred fifty-three acute-care hospitals, United States, contributing data (including microbiology) to Premier database, 2012-2019.PatientsPatients with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia identified based on a slightly modified previously published International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition/International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition-Clinical Modification algorithm.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAmong 17,819 patients who met enrollment criteria, 26.5% had nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, 25.6% vHAPB, and 47.9% ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia predominated in the Northeastern United States and in large urban teaching hospitals. Patients with nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia were oldest (mean 66.7 ± 15.1 yr) and most likely White (76.9%), whereas those with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were youngest (59.7 ± 16.6 yr) and least likely White (70.3%). Ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia was associated with the highest comorbidity burden (mean Charlson score 4.1 ± 2.8) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia with the lowest (3.2 ± 2.5). Similarly, hospital mortality was highest among patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (29.2%) and lowest in nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (11.7%), with ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in-between (21.3%). Among survivors, 24.5% of nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia required a rehospitalization within 30 days of discharge, compared with 22.5% among ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and 18.8% ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Unadjusted hospital length of stay after infection onset was longest among ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia and shortest among nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia patients. Median total hospital costs mirrored length of stay: ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia $77,657, ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia $62,464, and nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia $39,911.ConclusionsBoth hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia remain associated with significant mortality and cost in the United States. Our analyses confirm that of all three conditions, ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia carries the highest risk of death. In contrast, ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia remains most costly. Nonventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia survivors were most likely to require a readmission within 30 days of discharge.