Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Aztreonam-Avibactam (ATM-AVI) Versus Meropenem for the Treatment of Serious Infections Due to Gram-Negative Bacteria for Which There Are Limited Treatment Options (LTO) in Italy
Author(s)
Bao X1, Woodcock F1, Di Virgilio R2, Kantecki M3, Chow J4, Gheorghe M5
1Source Health Economics, London, LON, UK, 2Pfizer Italia, Rome, Italy, 3Pfizer, Paris, France, 4Pfizer Global, Collegeville, PA, USA, 5Pfizer SRL, Bucharest, București – Ilfov, Romania
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Aztreonam-Avibactam (ATM-AVI) is a combination therapy including the monobactam aztreonam (ATM) and the non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor avibactam (AVI). A Phase 3 randomised clinical trial (REVISIT) investigated ATM-AVI for the treatment of serious Gram-negative infections (GNI) including MBL-producing pathogens for which there are limited treatment options (LTO). This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of ATM-AVI ± metronidazole versus meropenem ± colistin for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) and hospital-acquired pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP) in the Italian setting. Uncertainty in the model was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analyses.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis used a decision tree model that simulates the clinical pathway, followed by a Markov model to capture lifetime impacts on cured patients was used. The model adopted Italian National Health System perspective with a 3% discount rate. Treatment response rates were taken from REVISIT, with separate analyses for the cIAI and HAP/VAP populations. The impact of resistant pathogens from recent literature was included as an additional factor
RESULTS: The key drivers of the model are the response rates from REVISIT and the impact of resistant pathogens which influence QALY gains from survival in the long-term model. For cIAI, treatment with ATM-AVI ± metronidazole versus meropenem ± colistin leads to a gain of 0.23 LYs, 0.21 QALYs, and incremental costs of €3,970, generating an ICER of €18,997/QALY. For the HAP/VAP, there was a gain of 0.46 LYs, 0.42 QALYs, and incremental costs of €4,480, generating an ICER of €10,725/QALY. For both cIAI and HAP/VAP indications, the ICER is well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY accepted in Italy.
CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of ATM-AVI will lead to improved outcomes for patients with cIAI and HAP/VAP, with a minimal cost impact in the Italian setting, meaning that ATM-AVI is a cost-effective strategy compared to meropenem.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 26, Issue 11, S2 (December 2023)
Code
EE34
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Drugs, Infectious Disease (non-vaccine)