Journal article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceftazidime/avibactam compared to imipenem as empirical treatment for complicated urinary tract infections


Authors listKongnakorn, Thitima; Wagenlehner, Florian; Falcone, Marco; Tichy, Eszter; Di Virgilio, Roberto; Baillon-Plot, Nathalie; Charbonneau, Claudie

Publication year2019

Pages633-641

JournalInternational Journal of Antimicrobial Agents

Volume number54

Issue number5

ISSN0924-8579

eISSN1872-7913

Open access statusHybrid

DOI Linkhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.06.008

PublisherElsevier


Abstract
Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a novel, fixed-dose combination antibiotic that has been approved in Europe and the United States for patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) based on results of a Phase III, randomized, comparative study (RECAPTURE study). The present analysis evaluated cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI as an empirical treatment for hospitalized patients with cUTIs from the Italian publicly funded healthcare (third-party payer) perspective. A sequential, patient-level simulation model was developed that followed the clinical course of cUTI and generated 50 00 pairs of identical patients (CAZ-AVI or imipenem as empirical treatment). The model included additional impact of resistant pathogens; patients who did not respond to empirical treatment were switched to second-line treatment of colistin+high dose carbapenem in both groups. The time horizon of the model was five years, with an annual discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The analysis demonstrated that an intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin+high dose carbapenem) compared with a comparator sequence (imipenem followed by colistin+high dose carbapenem) was associated with a net incremental cost of (sic)1015 per patient but provided better health outcomes in terms of clinical cure (97.65% vs. 91.08%; Delta = 6.57%), shorter hospital stays (10.65 vs. 12.55 days; Delta = 1.90 days), and QALYs gained per patient (4.190 vs. 4.063; Delta = 0.126). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was (sic)8039/QALY, which is well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of (sic)30 000/QALY in Italy. The results showed that CAZ-AVI is expected to be a cost-effective treatment compared with imipenem for cUTI in Italy. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.



Citation Styles

Harvard Citation styleKongnakorn, T., Wagenlehner, F., Falcone, M., Tichy, E., Di Virgilio, R., Baillon-Plot, N., et al. (2019) Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceftazidime/avibactam compared to imipenem as empirical treatment for complicated urinary tract infections, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 54(5), pp. 633-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.06.008

APA Citation styleKongnakorn, T., Wagenlehner, F., Falcone, M., Tichy, E., Di Virgilio, R., Baillon-Plot, N., & Charbonneau, C. (2019). Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceftazidime/avibactam compared to imipenem as empirical treatment for complicated urinary tract infections. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 54(5), 633-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.06.008



Keywords


antimicrobial susceptibilityAVIBACTAMCAZ-AVI (or ceftazidime/avibactam)Cost-effective analysiseconomic evaluationINCLUDING ACUTE PYELONEPHRITISRECAPTUREUTI (or urinary tract infection)

Last updated on 2025-10-06 at 11:05