Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection in patients aged ≥60 years (EXTEND): analysis of cost-effectiveness
Oliver A Cornely, Maureen Watt, Charles McCrea, Simon D Goldenberg, Enrico De Nigris, Oliver A Cornely, Maureen Watt, Charles McCrea, Simon D Goldenberg, Enrico De Nigris
Abstract
Objectives: The randomized Phase IIIb/IV EXTEND trial showed that extended-pulsed fidaxomicin significantly improved sustained clinical cure and reduced recurrence versus vancomycin in patients ≥60 years old with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Cost-effectiveness of extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus vancomycin as first-line therapy for CDI was evaluated in this patient population.
Methods: Clinical results from EXTEND and inputs from published sources were used in a semi-Markov treatment-sequence model with nine health states and a 1 year time horizon to assess costs and QALYs. The model was based on a healthcare system perspective (NHS and Personal Social Services) in England. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
Results: Patients receiving first-line extended-pulsed fidaxomicin treatment had a 0.02 QALY gain compared with first-line vancomycin (0.6267 versus 0.6038 QALYs/patient). While total drug acquisition costs were higher for extended-pulsed fidaxomicin than for vancomycin when used first-line (£1356 versus £260/patient), these were offset by lower total hospitalization costs (which also included treatment monitoring and community care costs; £10 815 versus £11 459/patient) and lower costs of managing adverse events (£694 versus £1199/patient), reflecting the lower incidence of CDI recurrence and adverse events with extended-pulsed fidaxomicin. Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin cost £53 less per patient than vancomycin over 1 year. The probability that first-line extended-pulsed fidaxomicin was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000/QALY was 76% in these patients.
Conclusions: While fidaxomicin acquisition costs are higher than those of vancomycin, the observed reduced recurrence rate with extended-pulsed fidaxomicin makes it a more effective and less costly treatment strategy than vancomycin for first-line treatment of CDI in older patients.
Figures
References
- Smits WK, Lyras D, Lacy DB. et al. Clostridium difficile infection. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016; 2: 16020.
- Public Health England. Clostridium difficile infection: annual data. .
- Public Health England. Thirty-day all-cause fatality subsequent to MRSA, MSSA and E. coli bacteraemia and C. difficile infection, 2015/16. 2016. .
- Shin JH, High KP, Warren CA.. Older is not wiser, immunologically speaking: effect of aging on host response to Clostridium difficile infections. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2016; 71: 916–22.
- Louie TJ, Miller MA, Crook DW. et al. Effect of age on treatment outcomes in Clostridium difficile infection. J Am Geriatr Soc 2013; 61: 222–30.
- Kwon JH, Olsen MA, Dubberke ER.. The morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2015; 29: 123–34.
- Caroff DA, Yokoe DS, Klompas M.. Evolving insights into the epidemiology and control of Clostridium difficile in hospitals. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65: 1232–8.
- Wiegand PN, Nathwani D, Wilcox MH. et al. Clinical and economic burden of Clostridium difficile infection in Europe: a systematic review of healthcare-facility-acquired infection. J Hosp Infect 2012; 81: 1–14.
- Eckmann C, Wasserman M, Latif F. et al. Increased hospital length of stay attributable to Clostridium difficile infection in patients with four co-morbidities: an analysis of hospital episode statistics in four European countries. Eur J Health Econ 2013; 14: 835–46.
- van Kleef E, Green N, Goldenberg SD. et al. Excess length of stay and mortality due to Clostridium difficile infection: a multi-state modelling approach. J Hosp Infect 2014; 88: 213–7.
- Public Health England. Mandatory enhanced MRSA, MSSA and Escherichia coli bacteraemia, and Clostridium difficile infection surveillance. Protocol version 4.0. 2016. .
- Cornely OA, Crook DW, Esposito R. et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2012; 12: 281–9.
- Louie TJ, Miller MA, Mullane K. et al. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 422–31.
- Chilton CH, Crowther GS, Todhunter SL. et al. Efficacy of alternative fidaxomicin dosing regimens for treatment of simulated Clostridium difficile infection in an in vitro human gut model. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015; 70: 2598–607.
- Guery B, Menichetti F, Anttila V. et al. Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection in patients 60 years and older (EXTEND): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3b/4 trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2017; 18: 296–307.
- Burton HE, Mitchell SA, Watt M.. A systematic literature review of economic evaluations of antibiotic treatments for Clostridium difficile infection. Pharmacoeconomics 2017; 35: 1123–40.
- Briggs A, Sculpher M.. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 397–409.
- Slobogean GP, O’Brien PJ, Brauer CA.. Single-dose versus multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for the surgical treatment of closed fractures. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 256–62.
- Watt M, McCrea C, Johal S. et al. A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of first-line fidaxomicin for patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in Germany. Infection 2016; 44: 599–606.
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Single technology appraisal TA215. Pazopanib (Votrient®) for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. 2010. .
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Bortezomib for previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma. Technol Apprais Guid 2015. .
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Empagliflozin in combination therapy for treating type 2 diabetes. 2015. .
- Martí SG, Colantonio L, Bardach A. et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of a 10-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in children in six Latin American countries. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2013; 11: 21..
- Office for National Statistics. UK consumer price inflation: Oct 2016. .
- Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary, 72nd edn London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press, 2016.
- Department of Health. Updated guidance on the diagnosis and reporting of Clostridium difficile 2012. .
- Curtis L, Burns A. Unit costs of health and social care 2015. Personal Social Services Research Unit: University of Kent, Canterbury, UK. .
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The guidelines manual. Process and methods [PMG6]. 2012. .
- Gallagher JC, Reilly JP, Navalkele B. et al. Clinical and economic benefits of fidaxomicin compared to vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2015; 59: 7007–10.
- Patel D, Goldman-Levine JD.. Fidaxomicin (Dificid) for Clostridium difficile infection. Am Fam Physician 2013; 87: 211–2.
- Debast S, Bauer M, Kuijper E.. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases: update of the treatment guidance document for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014; 20: 1–26.
- Dubberke ER, Schaefer E, Reske KA. et al. Attributable inpatient costs of recurrent Clostridium difficile infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35: 1400–7.
- Stranges PM, Hutton DW, Collins CD.. Cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating fidaxomicin versus oral vancomycin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection in the United States. Value Health 2013; 16: 297–304.
- Watt M, Dinh A, Le Monnier A. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of fidaxomicin and vancomycin to treat Clostridium difficile infection in France. J Med Econ 2017; 1–9.
- Nathwani D, Cornely OA, Van Engen AK. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in Clostridium difficile infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69: 2901–12.
- Shyangdan D, Jacob RP, Connock M et al. Empagliflozin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a single technology appraisal. Warwick Evidence: University of Warwick Medical School, July 2014.
Source: PubMed