BACKGROUND: In May 2011, the Food and Drug Administration approved fidaxomicin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). It has been found to be noninferior to vancomycin; however, its cost-effectiveness for the treatment of CDI remains undetermined. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic simulation model to determine the economic value of fidaxomicin for CDI treatment from the third-party payer perspective. We looked at CDI treatment in these 3 cases: (1) no fidaxomicin, (2) only fidaxomicin, and (3) fidaxomicin based on strain typing results. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for fidaxomicin based on screening given current conditions was >$43.7 million per quality-adjusted life-year and using only fidaxomicin was dominated (ie, more costly and less effective) by the other 2 treatment strategies explored. The fidaxomicin strategy tended to remain dominated, even at lower costs. With approximately 50% of CDI due to the NAP1/BI/027 strain, a course of fidaxomicin would need to cost ≤$150 to be cost-effective in the treatment of all CDI cases and between $160 and $400 to be cost-effective for those with a non-NAP1/BI/027 strain (ie, treatment based on strain typing). CONCLUSIONS: Given the current cost and NAP1/BI/027 accounting for approximately 50% of isolates, using fidaxomicin as a first-line treatment for CDI is not cost-effective. However, typing and treatment with fidaxomicin based on strain may be more promising depending on the costs of fidaxomicin.
BACKGROUND: In May 2011, the Food and Drug Administration approved fidaxomicin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). It has been found to be noninferior to vancomycin; however, its cost-effectiveness for the treatment of CDI remains undetermined. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic simulation model to determine the economic value of fidaxomicin for CDI treatment from the third-party payer perspective. We looked at CDI treatment in these 3 cases: (1) no fidaxomicin, (2) only fidaxomicin, and (3) fidaxomicin based on strain typing results. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for fidaxomicin based on screening given current conditions was >$43.7 million per quality-adjusted life-year and using only fidaxomicin was dominated (ie, more costly and less effective) by the other 2 treatment strategies explored. The fidaxomicin strategy tended to remain dominated, even at lower costs. With approximately 50% of CDI due to the NAP1/BI/027 strain, a course of fidaxomicin would need to cost ≤$150 to be cost-effective in the treatment of all CDI cases and between $160 and $400 to be cost-effective for those with a non-NAP1/BI/027 strain (ie, treatment based on strain typing). CONCLUSIONS: Given the current cost and NAP1/BI/027 accounting for approximately 50% of isolates, using fidaxomicin as a first-line treatment for CDI is not cost-effective. However, typing and treatment with fidaxomicin based on strain may be more promising depending on the costs of fidaxomicin.
Authors: J H Boone; M Goodykoontz; S J Rhodes; K Price; J Smith; K N Gearhart; R J Carman; T M Kerkering; T D Wilkins; D M Lyerly Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: S M McGlone; R R Bailey; S M Zimmer; M J Popovich; Y Tian; P Ufberg; R R Muder; B Y Lee Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2011-06-10 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Dimitri M Drekonja; Mary Butler; Roderick MacDonald; Donna Bliss; Gregory A Filice; Thomas S Rector; Timothy J Wilt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Oliver A Cornely; Derrick W Crook; Roberto Esposito; André Poirier; Michael S Somero; Karl Weiss; Pamela Sears; Sherwood Gorbach Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: David Alexander Sclar; Linda M Robison; Ambartsum M Oganov; Jennifer M Schmidt; Kurt A Bowen; Leigh V Castillo Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 2.859