Pharmacoeconomic studies of novel antibacterial drugs active against multidrug resistant pathogens

Download full text PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29296/25419218-2020-04-02
Issue: 
4
Year: 
2020

D.D. Savintseva(1), I.N. Sychev(2), N.B. Lazareva(1) 1-I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 8, Trubetskaya St., Build. 2, Moscow 119992, Russian Federation; 2-Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 2/1, Barrikadnaya St., Build. 1, Moscow 125993, Russian Federation

The ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and some Enterobacter species) are a group of the most dangerous multiple antibacterial resistant infectious agents. The choice of effective antibiotic therapy becomes a difficult task for limited state budgets, whereas the discovery of new molecules that can act on resistant pathogens is extremely difficult and requires a lot of resources and time. Therefore, the role of pharmacoeconomic analysis in the rational use of antibacterial drugs is growing significantly in our time. The results of pharmacoeconomic studies of innovative antibacterial drugs are an important tool for determining the feasibility of introducing these drugs into routine clinical practice. The analysis of relevant publications has revealed that the experience of pharmacoeconomic studies of using antibacterial drugs is limited and unreasonably rarely used for economic evaluation of the feasibility for administering novel antibacterial drugs. This study makes it possible to evaluate the experience with pharmacoeconomically analyzing the novel antibacterial drugs that are active against multidrug-resistant pathogens and to identify opportunities for further pharmacoeconomic studies of novel antibacterial drugs.
Keywords: 
antibacterial drugs
ESKAPE
infections
pharmacoeconomic analysis
clinical and economic analysis
cost analysis
References: 
  1. Santajit S., Indrawattana N. Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens. Biomed. Res. Int. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2475067
  2. Verhoef T.I., Morris S. Cost-effectiveness and pricing of antibacterial drugs. Chem. Biol. Drug. Des. 2014; 85 (1): 4–13. DOI: 10.1111/cbdd.12417
  3. Jack N. Pendleton, Sean P. Gorman & Brendan F. Gilmore. Clinical relevance of the ESKAPE pathogens. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy. 2013; 11 (3): 297–308. DOI: 10.1586/eri.13.12.
  4. Santajit S., Indrawattana N. Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance in ESKAPE Pathogens. Biomed Res Int. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2475067.
  5. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Antibiotics Currently in Global Clinical Development. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en (circulation date 25 April, 2019).
  6. Gosudarstvennyj Reestr lekarstvennyh sredstv. [Elektronnoe izdanie]. Rezhim dostupa: http://www.grls.rosminzdrav.ru/default.aspx (data obraschenija 23 marta 2019 g.) [Gosudarstvennyi reestr lekarstvennykh sredstv. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://grls.rosminzdrav.ru/default.aspx (circulation date 23 March, 2019). (in Russian).]
  7. Nauchnaja elektronnaja biblioteka e-LIBRARY.RU. [Elektronnyj resurs]. Rezhim dostupa: https://elibrary.ru/querybox.asp?scope=newquery (data obraschenija 10 avgusta 2019 g.) [Nauchnaya elektronnaya biblioteka e-LIBRARY.RU. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://elibrary.ru/querybox.asp?scope=newquery (circulation date 10 August, 2019) (in Russian).]
  8. 8. PubMed. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed (circulation date 26 June, 2019).
  9. 9. Serpik V.G., Jagudina R. I. Farmakoekonomicheskaja otsenka primenenija preparata «Dalbavantsin (ksidalba)» v lechenii infektsij kozhi i mjagkih tkanej v uslovijah statsionara v Rossijskoj Federatsii. Farmakoekonomika: Teorija i praktika. 2017; 5 (2). [Serpik V.G., Yagudina R.I. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of the use of the drug «Dalbavancin (Xydalba)» in the treatment of infections of the skin and soft tissues in a hospital in the Russian Federation. Farmakoekonomika: Teoriya i praktika. 2017; 5 (2) (in Russian)].
  10. 10. Zyrjanov S.K., Belousov D.Ju., Afanas'eva E.V. Sravnitel'nyj farmakoekonomicheskij analiz tseftarolinafosamil pri lechenii oslozhnennyh infektsij kozhi i mjagkih tkanej. Kachestvennaja klinicheskaja praktika. 2015; 3: 43–59. [Zyryanov S.K., BelousovD.Yu., Afanas'eva E.V. Comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of ceftarolinaphosamil in the treatment of complicated infections of the skin and soft tissues. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika. 2015; 3: 43–59 (in Russian)].
  11. 11. Kolbin A.S., Viljum I.A., Proskurin M.A., Balykina Ju.E. Farmakoekonomicheskij analiz primenenija telavantsina v terapii patsientov s oslozhnennymi infektsijami kozhi i mjagkih tkanej v uslovijah zdravoohranenija RF. Farmakoekonomika: teorija i praktika. 2016; 4 (2): 75–81. [Kolbin A.S., Vilyum I.A., Proskurin M.A., Balykina Yu.E. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of the use of telavancin in the treatment of patients with complicated infections of the skin and soft tissues in the health care system of the Russian Federation. Farmakoekonomika: teoriya i praktika. 2016; 4 (2): 75–81 (In Russian)].
  12. Kolbin A.S., Viljum I.A., Proskurin M.A., Balykina Ju.E. Farmakoekonomicheskij analiz primenenija telavantsina v terapii patsientov s nozokomial'noj pnevmoniej v uslovijah zdravoohranenija RF. Farmakoekonomika: teorija i praktika. 2016; 4 (2): 88–92. [Kolbin A.S., Vilyum I.A., Proskurin M.A., BalykinaYu.E. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of the use of telavancin in the treatment of patients with nosocomial pneumonia in the healthcare sector of the Russian Federation.Farmakoekonomika: teoriya i praktika. 2016; 4 (2): 88–92 (in Russian)].
  13. Browne C., Muszbek N., Chapman R., Marsh K., Gould I.M., Seaton R.A., Allen M. Comparative healthcare-associated costs of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia-infective endocarditis treated with either daptomycin or vancomycin. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2016; 47 (5): 357–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.02.006
  14. Wright B.M., Eiland E.H. 3rd. Retrospective analysis of clinical and cost outcomes associated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus complicated skin and skin structure infections treated with daptomycin, vancomycin, or linezolid. J. Pathog. 2011; 2011: 347969. DOI: 10.4061/2011/347969.
  15. Bhavnani S.M., Prakhya A., Hammel J.P. & Ambrose P.G. Cost-effectiveness of daptomycin versus vancomycin and gentamicin for patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and/or endocarditis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009; 49: 691–8. DOI: 10.1086/604710.
  16. Kauf T.L., McKinnon P., Corey G.R. et al. An open-label, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of daptomycin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection. BMC Infect. Dis. 2015; 15: 503. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-015-1261-9.
  17. Bounthavong M., Zargarzadeh A., Hsu D.I., Vanness D.J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: complicated skin and skin structure infection using Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis. Value Health. 2011; 14: 631–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.12.006.
  18. McComb M.N., Collins C.D. Comparative cost-effectiveness of alternative empiric antimicrobial treatment options for suspected enterococcal bacteremia. Pharmacotherapy. 2014; 34: 537–44. DOI: 10.1002/phar.1393
  19. Huang X.Y., Lodise T., Friedland D., Beresford E.J. The economic impact of adding ceftarolinefosamil to hospital formulary for community acquired bacterial pneumonia: a hospital budget impact analysis in the United States. Value in Health. 2012; 15: a238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.1284
  20. Xingyue Huang, Eric Beresford, Thomas Lodise, H. David Friedland. Ceftarolinefosamil use in hospitalized patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: Budget impact analysis from a hospital perspective. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. 2013; 70 (12): 1057–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp120438
  21. Athanasakis K., Petrakis I., Ollandezos M. et al. Antibacterial treatment of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus complicated skin and soft tissue infections: a cost and budget impact analysis in Greek hospitals. Infect. Dis. Ther. Epub. 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s40121-014-0044-8.
  22. Stephens JM, Gao X, Patel DA, Verheggen BG, Shelbaya A, Haider S. Economic burden of inpatient and outpatient antibiotic treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus complicated skin and soft-tissue infections: a comparison of linezolid, vancomycin, and daptomycin. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013; 5: 447–57. DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S46991
  23. Laohavaleeson S., Barriere S.L., Nicolau D.P. et al. Cost effectiveness of telavancin vs. vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Pharmacotherapy. 2008; 28: 1471–82. DOI: 10.1592/phco.28.12.1471
  24. Prabhu V., Foo J., Ahir H. et al. Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as empiric therapy for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections based on the in-vitro surveillance of bacterial isolates in the UK. J. Med. Econ. 2017; 20: 840–9. DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1333960
  25. Kauf T.L., Prabhu V.S., Medic G. et al. Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as empiric therapy based on the in-vitro surveillance of bacterial isolates in the United States for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017; 17: 314. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-017-2408-7
  26. Neil J. Turco, Sandra L. Kane-Gill, Inmaculada Hernandez, Louise-Marie Oleksiuk, Frank D’Amico & Aaron J. Pickering. A cost-minimization analysis of dalbavancin compared to conventional therapy for the outpatient treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, 2018; 19 (4): 319–25. DOI:10.1080/14656566.2018.1442439
  27. Chen G.J., Pan S.C., Foo J., Morel C., Chen W.T., Wang J.T. Comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam versus piperacillin/tazobactam as empiric therapy for complicated urinary tract infection in Taiwan: a cost-utility model focusing on gram-negative bacteria. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2019; 52: 807–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2019.04.003
  28. Brunetti L., Poustchi S., Cunningham D., Toscani M., Nguyen J., Lim J. et al. Clinical and economic impact of empirical extended-infusion piperacillin–tazobactam in a community medical center. Ann. Pharmacother. 2015; 49: 754–60. DOI: 10.1177/1060028015579427
  29. Paladino J.A., Gilliland-Johnson K.K., Adelman M.H., Cohn S.M. Pharmacoeconomics of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole vs.piperacillin-tazobactam for complicated intra-abdominalinfections. Surg. Infect. (Larchmt.). 2008; 9: 325. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2007.010
  30. Muszbek N., Chapman R., Browne C., Marsh K., Gould I.M., et al. Using daptomycin in hospitalised patients with cSSTI caused by Staphylococcus aureus has an impact on costs. Chemotherapy. 2013; 59: 427–34. DOI: 10.1159/000363280
  31. Grant E.M., Kuti J.L., Nicolau D.P., Nightingale C., Quintiliani R. Clinical efficacy and pharmacoeconomics of a continuous-infusion piperacillin-tazobactam program in a large community teaching hospital, Pharmacotherapy. 2002; 22: 471–83. DOI: 10.1592/phco.22.7.471.33665
  32. Barron J., Turner R., Jaeger M., Adamson W., Singer J. Comparing the use of intravenous antibiotics under the medical benefit with the use of oral antibiotics under the pharmacy benefit in treating skin and soft tissue infections. Manag Care. 2012; 21 (9): 44–52.
  33. Grau S., Lozano V., Valladares A., Cavanillas R., Xie Y., Nocea G. Impact of a Dynamic Microbiological Environment on the Clinical Efficacy of Ertapenem and Piperacillin/Tazobactam in the Treatment of Complicated Community-Acquired Intra-Abdominal Infection in Spain: A Cost-Consequence Analysis. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2015; 13: 369–79. pmid:25761545. DOI: 10.1007/s40258-015-0162-9
  34. Jansen J.P., Kumar R., Carmeli Y. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections accounting for antibiotic resistance. Value Health. 2009; 12 (2): 234–44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00439.x
  35. 35. Jansen J.P., Kumar R., Carmeli Y. Accounting for the development of antibacterial resistance in the cost effectiveness of ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of diabetic foot infections in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009; 27 (12): 1045–56. DOI: 10.2165/11310080-000000000-00000
  36. Edwards S.J., Wordsworth S., Clarke M.J. Treating pneumonia in critical care in the United Kingdom following failure of initial antibiotic: a cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with piperacillin/tazobactam. Eur. J. Health. Econ. 2012; 13: 181–92. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-011-0296-0
  37. Carson J.G., Turpin R.S., Hu H. et al. Cost analysis of five antimicrobial regimens for the treatment of intra-abdominal infection. Surg. Infect. 2008; 9 (1): 15–21. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2006.081
  38. Jagudina R.I., Serpik V.G., Krylov A.B., Skulkova R.S. Vybor tehnologii sravnenija pri provedenii farmakoekonomicheskogo analiza innovatsionnyh lekarstvennyh preparatov. Farmakoekonomika: teorija i praktika. 2017; 5 (4): 5–11. [Yagudina R.I., Serpik V.G., Krylov A.B., Skulkova R.S. The choice of comparison technology during the pharmacoeconomic analysis of innovative drugs. Farmakoekonomika: teoriyaipraktika. 2017; 5 (4): 5–11 (in Russian)]