Dafna Yahav1,2, Daniel Shepshelovich3,4, Noam Tau3,5. 1. Infectious Diseases Unit, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel. dafna.yahav@gmail.com. 2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. dafna.yahav@gmail.com. 3. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 4. Medicine T, Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 5. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Guidelines for treatment of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria rely on newly approved antibiotics, with limited evidence of their effectiveness for treating these infections. Data regarding cost of such an approach are lacking. We aimed to evaluate estimated cost of using newly approved antibiotic drugs compared to older antibiotics for the treatment of difficult-to-treat pathogens. METHODS: MDR bacteria of interest included those defined by the World Health Organization as critical or of high priority for research. Old and newly approved antibiotics for these bacteria, defined as approved before or after January 2010, respectively, were evaluated for treatment cost and for 14-day treatment course. Estimated annual costs were calculated based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's' report on MDR bacteria prevalence in US hospitalized patients. Old and new drugs costs were compared. RESULTS: The cost of a 14-day treatment course for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia with a newly approved drug was found to be 6 to 60 times higher than that of older drugs. Similarly, the cost of a 14-day course for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales or MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa was doubled with new drugs; and for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, ~ 20 times higher with newer drugs. Annual incremental costs of treating difficult-to-treat Gram-negative bacteria with new drugs ranged from 30 million to over 500 million USD. CONCLUSIONS: Using newly approved antibiotic drugs for MDR infections carries a large incremental cost. Additional data to support survival benefit of these drugs are required to justify the price differences. Subgroups of patients who would benefit most from treatment should be defined.
INTRODUCTION: Guidelines for treatment of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria rely on newly approved antibiotics, with limited evidence of their effectiveness for treating these infections. Data regarding cost of such an approach are lacking. We aimed to evaluate estimated cost of using newly approved antibiotic drugs compared to older antibiotics for the treatment of difficult-to-treat pathogens. METHODS: MDR bacteria of interest included those defined by the World Health Organization as critical or of high priority for research. Old and newly approved antibiotics for these bacteria, defined as approved before or after January 2010, respectively, were evaluated for treatment cost and for 14-day treatment course. Estimated annual costs were calculated based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's' report on MDR bacteria prevalence in US hospitalized patients. Old and new drugs costs were compared. RESULTS: The cost of a 14-day treatment course for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusbacteremia with a newly approved drug was found to be 6 to 60 times higher than that of older drugs. Similarly, the cost of a 14-day course for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales or MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa was doubled with new drugs; and for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, ~ 20 times higher with newer drugs. Annual incremental costs of treating difficult-to-treat Gram-negative bacteria with new drugs ranged from 30 million to over 500 million USD. CONCLUSIONS: Using newly approved antibiotic drugs for MDR infections carries a large incremental cost. Additional data to support survival benefit of these drugs are required to justify the price differences. Subgroups of patients who would benefit most from treatment should be defined.
Authors: Catherine Liu; Arnold Bayer; Sara E Cosgrove; Robert S Daum; Scott K Fridkin; Rachel J Gorwitz; Sheldon L Kaplan; Adolf W Karchmer; Donald P Levine; Barbara E Murray; Michael J Rybak; David A Talan; Henry F Chambers Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Adam G Stewart; Michael J Satlin; Sanmarié Schlebusch; Burcu Isler; Brian M Forde; David L Paterson; Patrick N A Harris Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Evelina Tacconelli; Elena Carrara; Alessia Savoldi; Stephan Harbarth; Marc Mendelson; Dominique L Monnet; Céline Pulcini; Gunnar Kahlmeter; Jan Kluytmans; Yehuda Carmeli; Marc Ouellette; Kevin Outterson; Jean Patel; Marco Cavaleri; Edward M Cox; Chris R Houchens; M Lindsay Grayson; Paul Hansen; Nalini Singh; Ursula Theuretzbacher; Nicola Magrini Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 71.421
Authors: Philipp Koehler; Matteo Bassetti; Arunaloke Chakrabarti; Sharon C A Chen; Arnaldo Lopes Colombo; Martin Hoenigl; Nikolay Klimko; Cornelia Lass-Flörl; Rita O Oladele; Donald C Vinh; Li-Ping Zhu; Boris Böll; Roger Brüggemann; Jean-Pierre Gangneux; John R Perfect; Thomas F Patterson; Thorsten Persigehl; Jacques F Meis; Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner; P Lewis White; Paul E Verweij; Oliver A Cornely Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Jeffrey R Strich; Sarah Warner; Yi Ling Lai; Cumhur Y Demirkale; John H Powers; Robert L Danner; Sameer S Kadri Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 71.421
Authors: John P Hays; Maria Jose Ruiz-Alvarez; Natalia Roson-Calero; Rohul Amin; Jayaseelan Murugaiyan; Maarten B M van Dongen Journal: Infect Dis Ther Date: 2022-05-23