Kenneth LaPensee1, Rohit Mistry2, Thomas Lodise3. 1. Director, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc, King of Prussia, PA. 2. Senior Associate, Health Economics, PAREXEL Access Consulting, PAREXEL International, London, UK. 3. Professor, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Omadacycline is an oral and intravenous (IV) once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic that is approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). It has broad-spectrum activity against common causative pathogens of ABSSSI, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Omadacycline has been shown to be noninferior to linezolid for the treatment of adults with ABSSSI across 2 phase 3 clinical trials. To date, no studies have assessed the budget impact for omadacycline in the treatment of ABSSSI. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential budget impact of introducing omadacycline as a treatment option in patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with ABSSSI from the hospital perspective (Medicare payer) in the United States. The ED's and observation units were assumed to be hospital-owned. METHODS: The base case of this decision model-based analysis was conducted from the perspective of a hospital for a theoretical cohort of 1 million covered Medicare members over a 3-year time horizon. Scenario analyses included the economic impact of (1) shifting inpatient care to the outpatient setting with omadacycline and (2) reducing hospital length of stay (LOS) among hospitalized patients with omadacycline IV to oral therapy relative to the current inpatient standard of care. Costs are presented in 2017 US dollars with no adjustments for inflation, based on the cost model estimates. RESULTS: The annual total incremental cost following the introduction of omadacycline as a treatment of ABSSSI was $11,168, $39,918, and $88,777 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The incremental cost per member treated (cost per case) rose by $0.49, $1.74, and $3.86 over 3 years. Reducing hospital LOS by 1 day among hospitalized patients with omadacycline resulted in incremental costs of $4311, $15,231, and $33,919 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Under the assumption that patients may be discharged sooner when an oral formulation of the same drug with which they are being treated is available, reducing hospital LOS by 2 days reduced costs by $2546, $9455, and $20,939 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Shifting inpatient care to the outpatient setting with omadacycline reduced costs by $38,777, $139,885, and $310,784 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. CONCLUSION: This hypothetical, model-based study determined that omadacycline would result in a modest increase in total cost over 3 years when introduced as a treatment for ABSSSI in adults who present to the ED for their care.
BACKGROUND: Omadacycline is an oral and intravenous (IV) once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic that is approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). It has broad-spectrum activity against common causative pathogens of ABSSSI, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Omadacycline has been shown to be noninferior to linezolid for the treatment of adults with ABSSSI across 2 phase 3 clinical trials. To date, no studies have assessed the budget impact for omadacycline in the treatment of ABSSSI. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential budget impact of introducing omadacycline as a treatment option in patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with ABSSSI from the hospital perspective (Medicare payer) in the United States. The ED's and observation units were assumed to be hospital-owned. METHODS: The base case of this decision model-based analysis was conducted from the perspective of a hospital for a theoretical cohort of 1 million covered Medicare members over a 3-year time horizon. Scenario analyses included the economic impact of (1) shifting inpatient care to the outpatient setting with omadacycline and (2) reducing hospital length of stay (LOS) among hospitalized patients with omadacycline IV to oral therapy relative to the current inpatient standard of care. Costs are presented in 2017 US dollars with no adjustments for inflation, based on the cost model estimates. RESULTS: The annual total incremental cost following the introduction of omadacycline as a treatment of ABSSSI was $11,168, $39,918, and $88,777 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The incremental cost per member treated (cost per case) rose by $0.49, $1.74, and $3.86 over 3 years. Reducing hospital LOS by 1 day among hospitalized patients with omadacycline resulted in incremental costs of $4311, $15,231, and $33,919 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Under the assumption that patients may be discharged sooner when an oral formulation of the same drug with which they are being treated is available, reducing hospital LOS by 2 days reduced costs by $2546, $9455, and $20,939 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Shifting inpatient care to the outpatient setting with omadacycline reduced costs by $38,777, $139,885, and $310,784 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. CONCLUSION: This hypothetical, model-based study determined that omadacycline would result in a modest increase in total cost over 3 years when introduced as a treatment for ABSSSI in adults who present to the ED for their care.
Authors: Sean D Sullivan; Josephine A Mauskopf; Federico Augustovski; J Jaime Caro; Karen M Lee; Mark Minchin; Ewa Orlewska; Pete Penna; Jose-Manuel Rodriguez Barrios; Wen-Yi Shau Journal: Value Health Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Donald E Low; Thomas M File; Paul B Eckburg; George H Talbot; H David Friedland; Jon Lee; Lily Llorens; Ian A Critchley; Dirk A Thye Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Daniel J Pallin; Janice A Espinola; Donald Y Leung; David C Hooper; Carlos A Camargo Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: John Weigelt; Kamal Itani; Dennis Stevens; William Lau; Matthew Dryden; Charles Knirsch Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jan Jelrik Oosterheert; Marc J M Bonten; Margriet M E Schneider; Erik Buskens; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Willem M N Hustinx; Mark H H Kramer; Jan M Prins; Peter H Th J Slee; Karin Kaasjager; Andy I M Hoepelman Journal: BMJ Date: 2006-11-07
Authors: Robert D Arbeit; Dennis Maki; Francis P Tally; Edward Campanaro; Barry I Eisenstein Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Helen W Boucher; Mark Wilcox; George H Talbot; Sailaja Puttagunta; Anita F Das; Michael W Dunne Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G Ralph Corey; Heidi Kabler; Purvi Mehra; Sandeep Gupta; J Scott Overcash; Ashwin Porwal; Philip Giordano; Christopher Lucasti; Antonio Perez; Samantha Good; Hai Jiang; Greg Moeck; William O'Riordan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Inge C Gyssens; Matthew Dryden; Peter Kujath; Dilip Nathwani; Nicolaas Schaper; Barbara Hampel; Peter Reimnitz; Jeff Alder; Pierre Arvis Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2011-09-06 Impact factor: 5.790